Demystify this!
Ever since I started blogging (two years this May!), some people have painted me out to be some kind of dinosaur who’s afraid that my world — that of the old-fashioned, top-down, print-based wine critic — is fast disappearing.
Trying to defend a system whose time has come, they say. Refusing to recognize that ordinary consumers no longer want or need “experts” to tell them about anything. And whenever I rise to my defense (and the defense of wine critics in general), I’m answered with something like this: “You’re just an industry gatekeeper, pushing back out of fear against the new world wherein every wine drinker is entitled to his own opinion.”
That’s how the well-known M.W., Tim Hanni, has been putting it, mostly lately in this article, in today’s online Guardian, out of England. Tim once again criticizes the “snobbery” and “prejudice” of those of us who dare to make wine suggestions and recommendations, a sin he believes “costs the wine industry billions of dollars a year” (for some undefined reason). Along the way, he also “debunks” one of wine’s most cherished assumptions: that certain wines and foods pair well together while others don’t. “’Matching’ wine and food is lazily unchallenged bunk,” the Guardian writer paraphrases Tim as saying. And, a little later: “For years, Hanni taught that wine had unassailable, objective absolutes; that certain foods are best eaten with certain wines – oysters with muscadet, say, or chablis.” There followed for Tim, in the mid-1990s, “an epiphany or a nervous breakdown” that made him reconsider “everything he had formerly believed.”
Well, I’m not big on epiphanies, although I’ve had my share of surprises that have made me reconsider lots of things. But I can’t imagine anything that would make Zinfandel taste good with oysters. Or a big, oaky Cabernet Sauvignon. Can you? Uggh.
Sure, it feels great to reassure people that they can drink anything they want with any food. People love reading that. It frees them from the very real tyranny that too often surrounds the wine-drinking experience. Tim argues that his mission in life is to liberate consumers from formulae, including pairings that are very old and well-understood. It’s what he calls “this profoundly modern, compellingly individualist approach,” which stands in utter contrast to tradition. And what better time to trash tradition than today, when everything we’ve known for so long seems to be coming undone?
I don’t agree with Tim’s premise, though. He can call me a dinosaur, an industry gatekeeper pushing back furiously against the onslaught of change. But none of that changes the truth. A winetaster can learn to understand and talk about wine. The longer you study it, the better you get. A wine critic who tastes his way through thousands of wines a year is in a better position to make judgments than the ordinary consumer. Food and wine pairings are not arbitrary.
Look, if you want to drink Harlan Estate with your oysters, be my guest. Not gonna lose any sleep over that one! If you want to say that all wine critics are full of it, go right ahead! Sticks and stones and all that. If you want to take the view that everybody’s palate is equal, feel free. I’m not gonna argue with you. If you tell people not to worry so much about wine, I’ll be right there beside you. In fact, I’ll say it now: People! Don’t worry so much about wine!
Still, having said that, I do think there’s a movement afoot in America driven by the “de-mystification” crowd who hope to make a living by doing that professional “de-mystifying” the public so deserves. Ironic that the people leading that movement are former critics and “snobs” themselves. Like Twelve-Steppers, they claim to have “seen the light” or “seen the error of their ways” (or, in Tim’ case, to have had “an epiphany”). But I’ll tell you the truth: Anybody who says their goal in life is to make simple what we wine critics over-analyze is giving you a simplistic explanation and one moreover you should take with a grain of salt. Beware the demystification industry. It’s not as pure and disinterested as you might think.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Steve, amen! Couldn’t agree more, and I often post this very point on my own blog as well as various blog comment threads. It’s very trendy to “stick it to the man”, like the Russian Revolution of 1917 – and look what came of that!
Best regards,
Iron Chevsky.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:17 am
The representation of the two points of view was nicely handled all the way through to the last sentence which–and I may be reading more into it than you intended, Steve–borders on defamation. At the very least it seems to reflect a kind cynicism: that Tim Hanni and other ~People’s Choice~ relativists are preaching their contrarian views just to make a buck. Nothing wrong with making money off of one’s perspective, but one presumes that the proponent believes in what is being propounded. Just as you maintain the integrity (the pureness) of your assessments, though you are being paid to make them.
Might you expand on this rather enigmatic statement.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Tim Hanni’s words would be more shocking and disappointing if he had not long ago become a parody of himself. Here is a guy who was the first (actually one of two in the same year) American to be awarded a full Master of Wine designation. Now, I am not big on the MW or MS programs because they attempt to say that “we are the kings of winetasting” and the rest of the world does not know jack. But, credit must be given where it is due. Earning an MS or an MW requires a lot of study and a fair bit of wine knowledge that the average wine drinker just does not have.
It does not make their palates more acute, but these designations at least speak to their depth of knowledge–and Tim Hanni was the first American to earn an MW. That means that he put a big prize on knowledge.
OK, so at some point he had an epiphany. Knowledge was irrelevant. Learning was useless. Experience counted for zilch.
Wow. Not even the newest members of the new media would take such a stance. The very fact that someone feels like they have something to say and puts that something into print is prima facie evidence that they think their insights have value.
To put it another way. Nobody starts writing if they think their words are meaningless chatter.
So, Tim had an epiphany and has rebelled against the very industry that made him famous. OK, no great problem with that even if it is intellectually inconsistent. We are all intellectually inconsistent at some point in our lives. We all change our minds about all kinds of things from what brand of toothpaste to buy to don’t ask/don’t tell. And thank goodness for that. We grow through our experiences, our increasing and changing perceptions of the world around us.
So, here is Tim’s new way of thinking. He believes that people have different amounts of taste receptors in their mouths and that this count of taste receptors makes them more or less prone to like certain types of wine. No need to know anything else about that individual except how many taste receptors he or she has. OK, I get that too–up to a point.
I am what I call a “savory”. I like dill pickles and corned beef (good corned beef–please, I know it when I taste it) sandwiches more than I like strawberry shortcake. Unlike my beloved sister-in-law, who is a damn fine cook having grown up in her parents’ restaurant, who chooses her dessert first in a restaurant and figures out how to get to the end of the meal still hungry, I find dessert pretty much irrelevant in my life except for a few lemon or chocolate or minty doings.
So, does that make me unable or uninterested in sweet wines? Well, not if you ask me for my favorite white grape which happens to be Riesling. Not if you look at my cellar with its boxes of Sauternes, Port, Madeira and LH Germans. And to be more frank, and thus critical of Tim Hanni–does that mean I cannot analyze sweet wines because my taste receptors generally prefer dry with food.
No, what you have here is the latest in “I know better than you”. Kill all the lawyers. The day of the critic is dead. Listen only to me, Tim Hanni, who, by the way, runs a very large wine tasting every year in which critics like me are asked to attend and taste.
No one need believe in critics. It is a free country, and certainly, we are seeing the emergence of new voices and new forms of wine opinion. But the notion that no opinion is good opinion is a bit silly when you think about. Opinions are like noses. We all have them. And, as Steve has said, we all ought to listen to our own palates. But none of that adds up to the Tim Hanni prescription or the Dan Berger prescription or the Cellar Tracker prescription or mine or Steve’s.
People are smart enough to know how to use expert opinion when they want to and in the form they want to. And it does not matter how many taste receptors you have or how many epiphanies you have had.
What I regret most in all this is that Tim Hanni, a good man in general, is now trying to tell us that there is only one brand of snake oil and it is good for everything that ails you. I just do not believe that and I hope that the rest of the world does not either.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:46 am
And to your point about the De-Mystifying wine movement, isn’t that what the critics (established print critics like yourself) are being paid to do? Take the wine world and find some way to break it down into portions that an uneducated wine consumer can use in their selections? I have yet to see anyone do it differently, so far I just have heard a lot of people making noise that they do it “better.”
February 4th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Rob, I agree. Some people who claim to do it “better” do so by pretending to “simplify” wine enjoyment. In reality there is no such thing as “simplifying” wine. I like to think my wine reviews are very easy to understand. They don’t need “simplification.”
February 4th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Steve,
I think Hanni is on to something here. I take the same approach with driving and have found that ignoring traditional experts and their stuffy signs makes for a much more satisfying experience. A “Stop” sign is just a suggestion, I’ve found, and my DNA, my personal driving palate, just doesn’t respond in the same way so-called gatekeepers (cops) want it to respond. And speed limits are old-fashioned, a symptom of how the gatekeepers are resistant to change.
Hanni could be right, and as a recovering abstainer, I salute his courage and bow down before his mighty M.W.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Tom, most of what I see and hear in the blogosphere by wine writers is about making money. That’s the more or less hidden agenda. I don’t think it’s defamatory to say that. It’s just being honest. Lots of wine experts are trying to find new models for making a living, and “demystifying wine” is one of them. In reality, “demystifying wine” isn’t new at all. It’s what wine writers have been doing forever. But in this day and age of “___ For Dummies,” appealing to the (slightly ignorant and overwhelmed) common man is a shrewd move.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Steve,
I have to agree with you completely. People should feel free to drink what they like with what they like. This axiom, however, has nothing to do with food and wine pairings and the degree to which there are better pairings than others.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I think Tim Hanni had been drinking(swallowing) when he made the comments about food/wine pairings. Seriously, the argument is ridiculous. The wrong wine can destroy the meal…literally rearrange the flavors in a way that confuses the palate. Wine should be seen as the final seasoning of the food. Would he agree that any dish could be ruined at the final stage of cooking by adding an element that was not in harmony with the previous ingredients? If so, one could only deduce the same with an inappropriate pairing. Absolutely, people should drink whatever they want with whatever they eat. No one is saying otherwise. But to not acknowledge that the decision will impact the meal is ludicrous and seemingly ignorant.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:30 am
A culture built on hucksterism deserves all the hucksters it gets.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who has not had a drop of in 15 years or so
February 4th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Ron, is HMW more powerful than MW? It has more letters so it must be!
February 4th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Steve,
An HMW is more powerful because it has more letters, and I’m the only one! A BMW trumps both.
By the way, I read the Hanni piece a bit like Charlie did, as more pathetic than anything else. Hanni should know better.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Y’all come have lunch with me, OK?
I apologize for the errant hyperbole of the writer, but he was excited about what he experienced at a dinner I cooked last week at a cool, old Embassy house 2 weeks ago in Wimbledon with 16 wine and food bloggers and writers. He had dinner with me and got a bit carried away. We tried evey ‘classic’, assessed everyones Sensitivity Quotient and had a blast. Once you actually experience what I am talking about and research you will find I am not the evil man you seem so bent on making me out to be. I am actually a pretty smart, really curious guy who is not making any of this up.
In fact – let me see if I can get Ken Brown to share his epiahny with oysters and Syrah from many years ago when we were at a tasting together at Paragon Vineyards. Rather than me relate it I just ran in to Ken and the first thing he said was how unbeleivable the experience was and how clearly he remembered the moment.
Night before last had dinner at Mondavi where Chef Jeff Mosher, who drank the Flavor Balancing Kool Aid some time ago, served a delicate Halibut dish with 1974 and 2006 Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon. Chef Sarah Scott, 14 years Senior Executive Chef for Mondavi, is the one of the longest practioners of this ‘un-matching’ approach, as is John Ash, Jeremiah Toser, Michel Trama (3 Michelin Stars!) and countless other great Chefs around the world. I have cooked lunch for all of them, why won’t you accept my invitation?
Charlie – you have EVERY trait of a Hypersensitive tasters. Never, ever have I insuated that “OK, so at some point he had an epiphany. Knowledge was irrelevant. Learning was useless. Experience counted for zilch.” In fact when we have lunch I will share with you the amazing insights we are finding with neuroscience researchers and how experiences and knowledge and learning all come into play in detemining our psycho-sensory profile.
Just talked to Ken – he will weigh in on this in a bit. Lot’s to discuss and a blog comment thread is no replacement for coming to my house for lunch.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
When you come to lunch I can also show you the preliminary data for the “defined reasons” that lead to the “he believes ‘costs the wine industry billions of dollars a year’ (for some undefined reason)” bit. I have been conducting survey work for the past 8 years and we are finding millions of wine consumers, meaning wine is the primary adult beverage of choice, migrate to cocktails or non-alcoholic beverages when they dine out or for special occasions. Dr.s Orley Ashenfelter (Princeton), Steve Cuellar (Sonoma State University) and Jim Lapsley (UC Davis) comprise the core inestigative team. More to come on that front!
February 4th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
One of the best lines (that Chris Farley’s character repeatedly screws up) in Tommy Boy is “I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull’s ass, but I’d rather take a butcher’s word for it.” Wine critics will always be needed. Now, the wisdom they dispense may change, but they’ll always be around in some form.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Steve,
I still think you appeared to be dismissing the Hannites as simply in it for the money; that they don’t really believe in their schtick. If this is your position then it is misplaced cynicism. Their point of view should be dealt with on its merits or flaws. Why resort to a (mild) ad hominem put down and accusations of hidden agendas? Why bring up the absurd category of purity. Tim is injecting the science whose distinctive feature is disinterest. Of course, if he can realize some income so much the better.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Tom, well thanks for pushing me to defend my statements. First, nobody has to apologize to me or anyone else for trying to make a living. I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the implication that professional wine writers and somehow complicit in a hoax to fool the public into thinking that wine is more complicated than it really is. That’s simply not true. Besides, the Hannite position is inherently flawed, as Charlie Olken pointed out. If wine is so simple that it doesn’t need anyone to explain it, then why don’t the Hannites bail out of the wine biz and turn to chiropractic or something else? You can’t have it both ways.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Theo, lol! First time I ever heard an analogy between wine writing and sticking your head up a bull’s ass!
February 4th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Mr. Hanni, let me get this straight. Are you and your cohorts claiming that there is no scientific basis for component pairing between wine and solid foods? Are you claiming that it’s all mental gymnastics?
May I propose that the fact that you have a problem with alcohol can also be a neurological gymnastic that compels you to to prove to the world that wine is nothing more than a drink. You’re a smart and curious man: is that at all possible?
February 4th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
And Charlie’s another guy who falls back on insults and his own anecdotal experience. It may well be that because of the way your palate leans, you may not be a good judge of desert wines for those whose palate leans in another direction. But you seem so threatened in your defensive lashing out that we’ll never be able to probe this in a civil manner. Oh well there will always be those who just “believe” and remained closed to evidence. “The earth is just flat because that’s how I see it.”
And by the way, Tim does run a large tasting competition, but this year he has chucked the “experts” like you, Charlie, in favor of consumers only who just like the pros must agree on the wines they prefer. It means having an opinion and then comparing it to other opinions–not unlike CellarTracker. Power to the people!
February 4th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Well, Tom, you have your views and I have mine. There have always been two ways to judge artistic products: through the eyes of experts and through the common person’s eyes. This tension exists today and probably always will. As a wine expert, I naturally steer toward the professional critic’s judgment. But I recognize that everybody’s entitled to his opinion.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Tom, I praised Tim Hanni, the person, and I respect his knowledge. I have read deeply into his theories, and I think they do not hold water.
The notion that I am not a good judge of dessert wines is pure BS, Tom. I know them, collect them, like them.
But, and here is the kicker. What I bring to my tastings is knowledge. To suggest that knowledge is not a major and overriding criterion simply does not square with my thinking. Unless, of course, that you think one has to have some theoretical number of taste receptors to know anything.
The notion that my delightful sister-in-law, the dessert queen, would be a better taster of sweet wines because she lives for sugar is bunkum. She knows nothing of dessert wines. Could not begin to tell you the difference between Sauternes and Riesling TBA and dried Xibbibo and Tokay, etc.
I strongly disagree with Tim’s ideas. I think they hold no water whatsoever if they would ever disqualify knowledgeable tasters from anything in favor of the unschooled. My sister-in-law would reel at the acidity and alcohol in sauternes, but would love sweet wines that are low in acid.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but once you begin to suggest, as the taste receptor theory does, that love of sweet equates to ability to understand wine, and for instance, to recognize VA or other unwanted elements in wine or to know when oxidation works for a sweet wine and when it does not, then you lose me. As does Tim.
But, make no mistake. I have the highest regard for Tim’s knowledge, and it is his knowledge, not his taste receptors that have allowed him to make worthy judgments about small differences in wine.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:30 am
Tom,
Surely, preference is important to consumers and they should taste and make their own decisions. But you and all those who come up with preference gambits seem neither to care nor to understand that the purpose of professional wine tasting is (was) to seek and reward achievement–not to sell to consumers.
Unfortunately, the whole wine evaluation system has been taken over by hucksterism and all these gimmicks are an extension of that system, not of wine evaluation.
It seems that each month some new slant is offered by some other agenda-driven huckster, and all of a sudden the whole wine world doesn’t have a clue–according to the new agenda. These days, the best way to evaluate those who claim to know what they are talking about is to follow the money.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:46 am
Oops, I hit submit before wanting to.
My finish line was meant to be:
If we take all the new hucksters into consideration, we should be drinking wines that cost no more than $6, pair either with KFC or Beluga (take our pick) and must be consumed while listening to punk rock (for a certain color of wine) or John Cage (for another color of wine).
What I find interesting is that all those who tell us that every palate is unique, seem always top follow with a set of doctrine that negates their own claim.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Hmmmm, I noticed that Tim Hanni put MW after his name in all his posts. I haven’t had enough coffee yet to see if that makes his point stronger or not.
I have always maintained that ratings and such are over rated.
If you know something you eat is appealing and have it with something you like to drink, chances are you will be happy and enjoy it.
But tastes are very subjective and there is not ultimate truth in whose right and whose wrong.
There is a certain amount of that still in the wine industry, as in movies, art you name it. I’m an expert, I know and when you put ice cubes in your wine it shows your lack of……….
I think people get too serious about this because so much of wine IS marketing. If you make it so anyone can enjoy wine, anyway they wan,t how will we convince people they should pay crazy amounts for 25.5 ozs of wine.
I look at wine to be enjoyed,by me, 1st and foremost. It brings me pleasure and is great when I drink it with friends or even alone.
I am a curious person and like many different wines and styles of food. I’m adventuresome and like to try new things.
Does that make me smarter then the ice cube lady?? Only so far as I know what I like and am certain of it.
I’ve been in the wine business a while and my favorite line in”Wine is the only test where all the answers are correct. You like it, your right! You don’t like it, your right!”
I think it is just that simple.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:56 am
As is often the case, the problem is not what Tim Hanni is basically saying — trust your own judgment, personal tastes differ — but the way that message is misinterpreted by others, including the person writing the Guardian article.
I don’t like Hanni’s anti-wine-media stance, though. If he actually read articles written by most of us, he would realize that our underlying message is often the same.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Thomas – “Mr. Hanni, let me get this straight. Are you and your cohorts claiming that there is no scientific basis for component pairing between wine and solid foods? Are you claiming that it’s all mental gymnastics? YES AND NO – THE SCIENCES USED TO EXPLAIN THINGS ARE MOSTLY MISGUIDED AND THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS PLAY A MUCH LARGER ROLE THAN I EVER WOULD HAVE IMAGINED
May I propose that the fact that you have a problem with alcohol can also be a neurological gymnastic that compels you to to prove to the world that wine is nothing more than a drink. WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY AND A LITTLE TIME WITH ME WILL PROVIDE A MUCH CLEARER PICTURE. You’re a smart and curious man: is that at all possible?” YES
I am claiming that the scientific bases for pairing wine and food, which I have studied systematicially, in depth and with experts around the world for over 20 years, turn out to be so counter to conventional wisdoms that it renders virtually every single explanation we use useless. This 20 years is on top of my training as a professional Chef and overall study of wine for 43 years. Sh*t – I am really old!
I also have a disease called alcoholism. For the past 17 years I have chosen to turn my passion, curiosity and intimate knowledge of the product to investigating and learning more about the many, and often completely opposite, points of view that people at every level of expertise seem to have about their experiences with wine and with food.
The mental gymnastics part of things, the neuroscince, is the most fascinating of all. We attribute many phenomenon to things like ‘our palate maturing’ or that certain foods ‘dull our taste buds’, etc. when in fact these are more often than not neural adaptations in response to stimuli, not anything to do with our palate per se.
Lastly, for eveyone to get, Oliver at the Guardian became REALLY EXCITED about what he experienced. I guarantee that you will too, once you experience what it is I am proposing, grasp the full scope and not just the hyperbole of one article and also let me systematically go throught the research papers and proof of each point, or correlation of research to demonstrate our many new and ‘in progress’ hypotheses, rather than just batting this back and forth on a blog comments section.
I spent hours with Robert Mondavi discussing this – he became a huge fan and supporter. I work with scientists and researchers areound the world. I will introduce you to them, just as I did when I coordinated the Masters of Wine International Symposium 3 1/2 years ago in Napa. I am the first North American, along with my great friend Joel Butler, to pass the damned exam, as well as the CWE the same year, and am the acting liaison for the IMW US to the Institute, and on Council, in London. I am the unofficial ‘designated driver’ for the IMW as well! I lecture frequently at scientific symposia around the world including standing as an international authority I have even presented in Kyoto, Japa as an expert on the umami taste – for which I was similarly lambasted 20 years ago BTW. Last year I presented for 200 neurologists and at the world’s largest taste and olfaction conference which was held in SF.
All this is just to say I don’t take this stuff lightly, I am not an idiot, and my ability to deal with generations of alcoholism in my is the greatest acheivement of my lifetime. Ask my beautiful wife and truly extraordinary children.
I am also a really, really great cook. So who the hell’s coming to lunch, dammit? Thomas – get your ass off the keyboard unless you have some specific and constructive questions to ask!!
Anyone who would like to talk by phone can e-mail me and I will set up a call: tim@napaseasoning.com and I will be glad to discuss my passion, the research and answer any questions full. I love this stuff!
February 5th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Tim,
I don’t want to spend a lot of time spelling out my credentials; I usually let my body of work do that for me.
My skepticism stems not from both practical life experience, as well as years as a journalist digging behind the statements of others.
For instance: statements like this, THE SCIENCES USED TO EXPLAIN THINGS ARE MOSTLY MISGUIDED scream out (literally, on the Internet) for explanation, if not an example or two. Even the great sciences of the mind don’t appear to be ready to make definitive statements like that. Incidentally, I agree with the concept that we constantly fool ourselves; why else would the wine critic world be so powerful a force? And why else would the anti-wine critic be able to build a platform, too?
You want questions. Here are some more:
Do you dispute the science that is behind the packaged food industry, the industry that has made fortunes manipulating food to appeal to the simplest (and sometimes basest) of human palate preference and acceptance?
Do you dispute the role of sugar in food and in wine?
Do you dispute the ability of our noses and palates to weed out poisons or toxins, a system that has observable benefit for propagating the species and that might have a lot to do with what we prefer from the aromas and tastes of wine, which often are connected to vague toxic references–i.e biogenic amines?
Do you believe that acidity does not cut through fats?
Do you consider the hundreds of components found–and yet-to-be-found–in wine to be of no consequence when deciding which wine would pair with which briny food, or which fatty food, or which sweet, acidic, high pH, highly spiced food?
If you are saying that none of the science matters because it is what we like that matters–I agree. But if you are saying, which you seem to be saying, that food science and the science behind how we taste, do not matter at all, then I think you are already out to lunch, and without me there.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Sorry, I thought I fixed this sentence:
My skepticism stems not from both practical life experience, as well as years as a journalist digging behind the statements of others.
Excise the word “not.”
February 5th, 2010 at 10:03 am
BTW – I am not, now or ever, anti-media. What is getting reported is INTERPRETATIONS of selected portions of a comprehensive and INCLUSIVE look at how the wine industry can grow and prosper. ALL dimensions! My focus has turned to alternatives, not replacement, for consumers who have been traditionally unswayed and even disenfranchised by different ways we choose to communicate, rate, evaluate score and/or match and pair wine.
Here is an example: Charlie O, “I strongly disagree with Tim’s ideas. I think they hold no water whatsoever if they would ever disqualify knowledgeable tasters from anything in favor of the unschooled. My sister-in-law would reel at the acidity and alcohol in sauternes, but would love sweet wines that are low in acid.”
Charlie – c’mon man, you don’t even know, truly, what my ideas are! You only know from stories written about pieces of what my ideas are that are more often only stories of stories about my ideas. You will LOVE my ideas and see they do hold water. AND I can even use your sister-in-law as a subject case study to look at the WHY she reels at the acidity and high alcohol. She is very probably also Hypersensitive to not only the VA and sulphur in these wines but to the thermostat setting and tags in her clothing! And Charli – get your ass up here and have lunch with me!
This comment thread is proof positive of the need for a better understang and tolerance for personal points of view. That is what I study. Try asking me specific questions and I will gladly explain!
February 5th, 2010 at 10:07 am
I had a similar reaction to a similar idea posed by Alder Yarrow a few months ago, and I’m just going to repeat what I wrote then. People set themselves up to fail too much when it comes to wine. They don’t become friendly with a good local retailer who can learn their preferences and steer them to stuff they’ll like, instead they chase points. They don’t get their wines served at the right temperature (too frequently by professionals) not giving the wine the best conditions to shine. And if they doing something really off with food and wine, there is another area where the wine may not be given a good chance.
I’ll give you a great example. My wife and I were out to dinner to celebrate our anniversary. We ordered a 1/2 bottle of Champagne which the server apparently forgot about because we had to ask again to get it delivered. By the time they got it to us, we already had our salads. Now, I know better, so I didn’t touch my Champagne while I ate my salad. My wife also knows better, but wanted to have some and immediately regretted it. If we did not know better, we might be inclined to think that this was a bad bottle of wine. I then had scallops, which I thought might go with the Champagne. But as soon as I tried it, I knew it was a bad idea, because it flattened the wine and gave a bad aftertaste to the scallops. If I didn’t know, if I subscribed to the “no rules” idea of food and wine, our entire special meal might have been ruined. Bad wine, bad scallops. Of course we ordered the wine we wanted, not the wine that went with our food, but we knew better than to try to match the two together (my wife had steak and did not touch her Champagne while she ate it).
How many people write off a wine that was just consumed with something it was utterly unsuited for? How many people decide they don’t like their meal that was just paired with something that wrecked it? I believe that it’s much more disheartening for these sorts of avoidable failures to occur than for people to feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all. Let’s say my wife and I were a bit younger and less wine exposed and this was the first time we had “good” Champagne. We might have decided that we just didn’t like Champagne at all not realizing that it was the combination of the wine and the salad that was the problem. Or we might have decided that in addition to sub-par service, this restaurant had poor food. Or both. So yeah, sometimes this stuff gets a little complicated and I’m certainly not for trying to create “perfect” pairings, but I think we do both the food and the wine a disservice if we do not acknowledge that sometimes they are not meant to be consumed together.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:12 am
I’d also add, after reviewing the article we did on Tim a year ago, that there is a marked difference between saying that any food/wine combination is possible AS LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS ARE ALTERED APPROPRIATELY and saying that any food/wine combination is possible period. In our article the writer did have lunch with Tim and was impressed by the ability of his custom seasoning to make unheard of food/wine pairings work. But without the seasoning, she didn’t think they worked at all.
So I’m not sure if Tim is trying to argue differently now, or if some things are just being lost in translation.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:23 am
As with most empirical based debates, it’s best to have people involved who can suspend bias. I don’t believe the professional wine writers whose fundamental modus operandi runs completely counter to what Mr. Hanni is proposing can stay objective. Of course, all those with an ax to grind will disagree and cast aspersions (that Tim Hanni the man is an upstanding guy has nothing to do with this debate and serves only to obfuscate the issue). Neutrality never entered the building.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Steve,
In the whole time I’ve studied wine (and food) I realize there’s just too much to know–it’s a lifelong learning curve–you always find something new and fascinating. When you say “The longer you study it, the better you get. A wine critic who tastes his way through thousands of wines a year is in a better position to make judgments than the ordinary consumer,” that’s right. My car mechanic, plumber and lawyer all give me useful advice, because they’ve spent time in their respective areas. I appreciate the reviews and comments from serious wine reviewers and have always found your writings helpful, insightful and interesting. Not that I always agree with you.
As for industry gatekeepers, sure there are pundits who think a lot of themselves and believe wine has to be “studied” in a certain traditional way to be appreciated “properly.” We all know who they are. Blogging has opened wine reviews to everyone, it’s been a breath of fresh air to a stale industry. However, I still appreciate the fact that honest wine critics like yourself are tasting thousands of wines and trying in good faith and whole heart to give a fair and balanced view and critique.
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” -Dr. Seuss.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Tom,
…and what in the way of neutrality does the person with something to sell offer in a debate?
One thing I learned both on the streets and in my professional life: it’s best to sell your product based on its merits rather than by pointing out what you think are the failures of the going merit.
If, as has been the claim more than once, the media keeps getting it wrong, then I suggest that if Tim chooses to use the media, he needs to learn to use it well or do his own marketing, promotion, and sales of whatever it is he has to sell.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Let’s see – where to begin…
Phil – “In our article the writer did have lunch with Tim and was impressed by the ability of his custom seasoning to make unheard of food/wine pairings work. But without the seasoning, she didn’t think they worked at all. So I’m not sure if Tim is trying to argue differently now, or if some things are just being lost in translation.” The article in the Sommelier Journal was a very in-depth and beautifully written account of the same kind of thing Oliver wrote about in the Guardian. Kim Pierce and Alfonso accepted my offer of lunch and it ended up as dinner in Dallas and an entire evening throwing every possible wine and food matching rule assuner. They are experts, were cynics and we had a great time! No difference in my argument – just new players, an article that was enthusiastic and only told part of the story and a bunch of people who are confronted by a lot of things about me personally and professionally.
I will now remove my credential form my post name – seemed when I was self-depricating and playful about it I was assaulted and when I put it formally it raises questions and concerns. Then if I then expand on my credentials and background it is construed as being pompous. sigh. Well, I am even going to be more pompous (so there!) and start name-dropping even more.
OK – so everyone calm down for a second – many of you are so pissed off that you are not taking a moment to understand anything about what I am doing or stand for. Please take a breath and relax. The reason I am taking the time to comment here is not to defend what I do but rather to invite anyone who is interested to consider that there is new and compelling information and scientific evidence that gives us all a way to rethink some of the commonly held, and violently argued, tenets of wine.
Thomas – “If you are saying that none of the science matters because it is what we like that matters–I agree. But if you are saying, which you seem to be saying, that food science and the science behind how we taste, do not matter at all, then I think you are already out to lunch, and without me there. ” Nowhere am I saying that none of the science matters – what I am saying is that over the course of 20 years of systematic study almost every ‘pseudo-sicentific’ explanation for wine and food cause/effect relationships have been dispelled or at least put into serious doubt pedning more research.
And YES (he screamed out) it is what we like that matters – and at the end of the day matters most! Studies of sensory physiology and neuroscience give us incredible new insights into the how and why of personal preferences and opinions. This is what I study with the aid of Chuck Wysocki (Monnell Chemical Senses Center), Michael O’Mahony and Rie Ishii (UC Davis and overssing studies related to the Consumer Wine Awards) and Dr. Virginia Utermohlen at Cornell University – a pediatrician and neurosensory scientist who studies behavior and personatlity development from a very similar direction that correlates to the sensory sensitivity/physiology perspective I have gained. She is our poster-child uber-hypersensative taster and can only tolerate sweet wines, over 3% residual sugar and less than 10% alcohol. Everything else hurts. She is not stupid, unwashed, unsophisticated or anything else we like to think and by the way, she loves white Zinfandel.
The people I work with are conducting rigorous and very sophisticted studies of “science that is behind the packaged food industry, the industry that has made fortunes manipulating food to appeal to the simplest (and sometimes basest) of human palate preference and acceptance?” I do not dispute this, to answer you question whether I dispute this or not. I work with the people who study it! And because I study it does not mean that I condone what it represents in application to mass-marketed and unhealful food!
One of the really coolest people I have had the honor to work with is Dr. Bob Noyes, recently passed away and former Food Scientist, professor and creater of the Vines to Wine program at Cal Poly, conducted lectures around the world based on my work for the Institute of Food Technologists.
I invited Bob to lunch 12 years ago and he ended up spending 8 months working with me on a formal sabbatical leave from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. We spent that time together following up research leads, helping to find the necessary information to get the answers to the questions that were being raised by critically rethinking the rules of wine and food matching, discrepancies of ratings and language and wondering why in the ehll there are so many differing opinions.
We were joined in our research efforts by Drs. Keith Patterson, plant physiologist, Margaret Rice and Joe Montecalvo, sensory scientists and Dr. Bill Amspacher in the wine business program. The research and applications for the findings are still used at Cal Poly today.
Here is a snippet about one of Bob’s presentations and from his bio:
“Bob Noyes, Distinguished IFT Lecturer and professor in the Food Science and Nutrition Department at California Polytechnic State University, presented “A Logical Approach to Wine and Food.” Noyes explained the key principles of wine and food in balance, which provides the platform for creating great tasting food that is delicious with individuals’ favorite wine.”
Dr. Bob Noyes, IFT
Distinguished Lecturer
Dr. Bob Noyes, Professor Emeritus of Food Science, taught in the Food Science and Nutrition Department at Cal Poly for 28 years retiring six years ago. His wine related efforts at Cal Poly included teaching two classes, one on the commercial production of wine and beer and another on the sensory evaluation and enjoyment of wine. Dr. Noyes received his Ph.D. in Food Science at the University of Georgia. He has served on the
executive committee of the Institute of Food Technologists He has been an
IFT Distinguished Lecturer since 2001 and is currently on the IFT foundation
Board.
This is but a brief glimpse of my cohorts.
Thomas – if you are a jounalist perhaps stifle your knee-jerk reaction and take a minute to dig into what the truth is, and isn’t, about what I am proposing. Here are the answers to your questions, some of which have nothing to do with what I do or this conversation per se but seems like they are important to you!
Do you dispute the science that is behind the packaged food industry, the industry that has made fortunes manipulating food to appeal to the simplest (and sometimes basest) of human palate preference and acceptance? NO
Do you dispute the role of sugar in food and in wine? NO
Do you dispute the ability of our noses and palates to weed out poisons or toxins, a system that has observable benefit for propagating the species and that might have a lot to do with what we prefer from the aromas and tastes of wine, which often are connected to vague toxic references–i.e biogenic amines? NO (gotta insert that we are looking at the possibility that we have observed that many people who hate Sauvignon Blanc have grass allergies and that the levels of 2methoxy-3isobutyl pyrizine in the wine may play a key role in acceptance/rejection due to subliminal association to grass and the reactions associated with the allergies).
Do you believe that acidity does not cut through fats? YES This one is easily demonstrable and ‘cuts through’ is a very vague metaphor in the first place. I will show you this at lunch.
Do you consider the hundreds of components found–and yet-to-be-found–in wine to be of no consequence when deciding which wine would pair with which briny food, or which fatty food, or which sweet, acidic, high pH, highly spiced food? Emphatically YES (he screamed) and wait ’til you see the stuff we are finding out on this front, especially when applied to individual sensory sensitivity and neural conditioning.
If you are saying that none of the science matters (NOT saying that) because it is what we like that matters (AM saying that)–I agree (WAHOO!). But if you are saying, which you seem to be saying, that food science and the science behind how we taste, do not matter at all, then I think you are already out to lunch, and without me there. NOT saying that, and probably am out to lunch metaphorically speaking. That is not something I am contesting.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Thomas – this is a great example of the dynamics of journalism! Thanks for helping me out. Above you stated, “I don’t want to spend a lot of time spelling out my credentials; I usually let my body of work do that for me.” Do you work for the National Inquirer? Since your want your “body of work” to spell out your credentials I am just playing with the idea that you have completely misquoted me. I know this is a pipedream but I hope you will take this with a bit of fun and a grain of salt (which suppresses bitterness in wine, counter to the conventional wisdom that salt increases bitterness in wine).
“If, as has been the claim more than once, the media keeps getting it wrong, then I suggest that if Tim chooses to use the media, he needs to learn to use it well or do his own marketing, promotion, and sales of whatever it is he has to sell.”
Now, you don’t really say that I am making the claim, but it sure could be construed that way. It infers that I made the claim and more than just once. This seems to be your addition to the conversation – not mine. I sure don’t remember ever saying the media “keeps getting it wrong”, and if I did, I apologize! That was not my intention.
What I said was, “I apologize for the errant hyperbole of the writer, but he was excited about what he experienced … and got a bit carried away.” Later I kinda reiterate, “I guarantee that you will too, once you experience what it is I am proposing, grasp the full scope and not just the hyperbole of one article”.
My point is that he just overly focused on a couple of the points, not balanced by counterpoints, and I think he did a great job.
And what the hell is everyone so feaked out by the possibility I may have a job, business or some form of income from any or all of this? I don’t remember trying to sell anyone on anything but a conceptual possibility that there is new, demonstrable and scientifically valid information available that can change a lot of what we thought were conventional wine wisdoms. Is everyone on this board independently wealthy or on welfare?? Holy moly. Keep it coming – I am having a blast.
Let me know if any of you have any food allergies, preferences or special diets…
February 5th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Thanks, Tim. I have a better handle on what you are saying–or trying to say.
I took your mini taster test a while back. Based on the super taster, et al, stuff, I’d have to say that the constraints that applied to my answers simply bear no relationship to my wine preferences, although they claimed to do so. For example, I remember that the results showed that that I’d prefer the opposite in wines (big, overblown stuff) than I actually prefer (subtlety) and that I’d likely prefer my coffee with milk, which is not at all true and that I prefer sweet things, which also is not true.
You guys and gals may be onto something, but I question any dogma or doctrine that results from your findings just as you question the dogma or doctrine that is spouted by those who claim to know which wine goes with which food.
I’m fully aware that the wine that I like today with my oysters may not be the one I like tomorrow with them, because tomorrow I might be in a different mood or the jerk sitting next to me might have on a bottle of cologne. That is where the idea of drinking and eating what pleases you comes into play.
But you seem also to be saying that what has been believed about what goes on in the palate has no bearing on the facts of what is actually going on. If so, I welcome your information that proves it.
The next time you come to Cornell U, let me know. I live in the Finger Lakes–the land of acid wines, which I prefer, along with my preference for strong double espresso and a lemon tart any day over a chocolate mousse…no matter what the jerk sitting next to me uses to stink up the room.
Finally, blaming the media is too easy and too simplistic. If you think they are getting it wrong, it could be either that your message isn’t intelligible enough for a simpleton journalist to get or that you need to focus better on both the message and the type of journalist you court.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Thanks for the reply Tim, that writer (in the Guardian) didn’t do you any favors really by representing your position as any food can go with any wine. Don’t know if it’s inexperience on the writer’s part or what, but leaving out that you altered the food with your seasoning to make it work with the wine is sort a big deal.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Chicken Little
was making dinner one night when suddenly, she realized she didn’t know, what wine should she be drinking with it? “Help! Help!” she called out. “Wine picks floor me! Wine picks floor me! I must go tell the King!”
She ran out of her house and it wasn’t long before she came across Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey and Cocky Locky, to each she called out, “Help! Help! Wine picks floor me, and I have to go tell the King!” And each replied, “Goodness! You’re right! That’s how we feel, too!” So off they all ran to tell the King.
“Where are you all running to?” Foxy Loxy asked them. “Wine choice floors us and we must tell the King!” they replied. “Yes, yes, I see what you mean. I know a short cut to the King, now hurry, hurry, follow me!” And he led them straight into his den and they didn’t have to worry about it ever again.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Sorry Tim, Steve’s not quick enough getting the comments through his filter–we overlap.
Your use of the word “hyperbole” to describe a journalist is what set me off. A true journalist isn’t supposed to hype the story.
Then there’s Tom Merle, who seems to have alluded to Steve and others who write about wine having an extended agenda which, by extension, casts aspersion on journalism, which is not exactly a dying sport these days.
Me, I have three books and 25 years of newspaper and magazine articles under my belt, not to mention the fact that I was a winemaker and owner of a vineyard and winery, worked for Lauber Imports, and owned and operated a wine shop in Manhattan for a few years–among a few other things that I have done and do in the biz, one of which having been to develop a wine sensory semninar.
So, now you know.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Thomas, sorry I can’t be here to approve comments 24/7 — or should I say 60/60/24/7. I do my best!
February 5th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Steve,
Didn’t mean it that way. But really, who needs sleep???
February 5th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Foxy Loxy clarification:
i forgot to add “Foxy [put any critic's name there] Loxy.”
and this is ALL meant in good spirits and fun, btw.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Thomas: I need no sleep. I taste 24/7 and my palate never tires.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Thomas – glad you took the test a while back. I think you may agree that it is nearly impossible for any journalist to be absolutely impartial and not inject some ‘color’ into a story at some level. Theoretically yes, but in reality probably not. Great philosophical question though! Today it is so about the hype that one can actually choose sources of news of information that is knowlingly biased, hyped and skewed to the views of parties and beliefs of choice! Thats as easy as picking up the New York Time or Washington Post, tuning into CNN vs. FOX and take your pick of radio programs! And I am not blaming the media for anything!!!!
Here is the hyperbole: “Wine critics’ advice is unchallenged bunk. Top wine expert Tim Hanni says we should ignore the critics and just drink what we like.” What I actually say is that a lot of the arguments about ratings, descriptors, history and matching wine with food are bunk. But I don’t say bunk in any case. AND I say find the critic that aligns with YOUR personal Sensitivity Quotient, passions and sense of aesthetics but at the end of the day feel completely free to dismiss any feeling of REQUIREMENT and drink what YOU love. Again – Oliver felt my message was inspiring and freeing. Happens a lot.
The Sensitivity Quotient quiz, on the YumYuk.com or TasteSQ.com clearly states that it is a Beta site. I have spent time with Linda Bartoshuk and while we take the “supertaster” work into account we are taking a much deeper number of factors into account and changing the language (from ’super’ and ‘non’ tasters) to be less judgemental.
The information before the TasteSQ quiz also begins with a clear message: “NOTE: TasteSQ is currently configured only to the YumYuk.com pathway: a guide for people who are typically OVERWHELMED by the enormous selection of wines available and NOT people who are already have strong opinions and knowledge. Your pathway is coming soon but go in and get your buds done anyway.” Once you get caught up into wine the psychological elements become more and more a factor, but the Sensitivity Quotient still plays a huge role.
The ‘warning’ is reiterated later on the wine recommendation landing page:
*This interview is a simplified version and works best for people who are confused, overwhelmed or befuddled by wine (which is millions of consumers!).
*A version of this is being developed for people who consider themselves to be more wine savvy or knowledgeable – stay tuned at http://www.tastesq.com.
“I took your mini taster test a while back. Based on the super taster, et al, stuff, I’d have to say that the constraints that applied to my answers simply bear no relationship to my wine preferences, although they claimed to do so. For example, I remember that the results showed that that I’d prefer the opposite in wines (big, overblown stuff) than I actually prefer (subtlety) and that I’d likely prefer my coffee with milk, which is not at all true and that I prefer sweet things, which also is not true.”
I am a bit confused about the reference above to this: “I remember that the results showed … that I’d likely prefer my coffee with milk, which is not at all true and that I prefer sweet things, which also is not true.”
We ask questions about coffee and sweetener in coffee – there are no results about that and these are used as indicators of bitter sensitivity and tolerance. Did you take he quiz at http://www.tastesq.com of the rather silly one the Wall Street Journal posted back then?
Seriously, once you start delving into what we are doing, how we are doing it and who is involved I think you will be amazed and, may I dare say, become a vital part of our research web and community. And Charlie too!
And how easy would it be to jump on, “so you think Steve’s not very quick” and make it a blog headline, eh?
February 5th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Hey – let’s take turns seeing how long Steve will keep moderating this into tonight? Years ago Andy Blue was MC for an event in Florida, was introducing me and said, “now here’s an oxymoron – Tim Hanni, moderator.”
February 5th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
All I can say is this. I started studying wine with food seriously about 30 years ago. At first, I was a good instinctive chooser–but quite often things did not work out for the best. I stayed at it. The matches got better. I figured out ways to predict the wine, and to communicate those ways. Twenty years ago, I was improving. Ten years ago, I was getting really good. These days, when I recommend a wine with a certain food people who thought they didn’t really like wine with food usually say, “Wow! That’s delicious! I see why you love wine with food!” I’m obviously not going into detail here. I’m just sayin’–the heart of the matter is knowable, learnable, and very, very far from bullshit. May I never have an epiphany….
February 6th, 2010 at 2:13 am
Tim, I find you ideas easy to believe, but the scientist in me demands more evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Where can I find more details in writing, and in particular the evidence for you ideas and assertions. It is a long way from the UK to have lunch with you – if you will forgive my presumption in turning down an invitation before it is offered
February 6th, 2010 at 7:13 am
Tim,
“AND I say find the critic that aligns with YOUR personal Sensitivity Quotient, passions and sense of aesthetics but at the end of the day feel completely free to dismiss any feeling of REQUIREMENT and drink what YOU love. Again – Oliver felt my message was inspiring and freeing. Happens a lot.”
Why does anyone need to find a critic that aligns with his or her personal sensitivity quotient, passions or sense of aesthetics? Laziness? Validation? Explanation of your own desires?
You obviously are selling something that is the anti-critic culture. I applaud the concept wholeheartedly; if you would take the time to find out more about me, you’d discover that. Still, I consider the claims behind your method suspect until I experience proof.
Re, journalism: what you describe in your opening paragraph is what pros would call “the death of journalism.” One of the things I’ve despised for most of my writing life is the disgusting notion that a quick, prurient, funny, whatever headline is required. It isn’t required, but it often is misleading.
It’s true that journalism, from its inception in America, has always been biased–ever read the revolutionary pamphlets? But the bias should not be in the writing–it should be in who receives coverage. The reporter should always be a bystander, not the lead. The crap on talk radio and most cable news is not journalism in any shape or form. It is entertainment with a bias.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:53 am
Even Steve needs to sleep.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:04 am
I have known Tim for some thirty years since he was in charge of Happy Herman’s wine department in Atlanta, Ga. I can say this that Tim believes over and above all else that all of us should enjoy the wine we prefer with or without food.
Now any great body of knowledge should withstand the test of time and change brought about by new research and technology. In this way there is adaptation as new discoveries come about. Also I note that Tim has studied the traditional body of knowledge about wine and has credentials to prove it. If he had not done that he would be unqualified to challenge it. It is interesting that those of you who want to say the Tim’s challenges are not valid have not studied the new body of knowledge on taste preference that Tim has now deeply engaged with and which Tim is applying to traditional wine tasting and food pairing. I suggest you go to lunch with Hanni with an open mind and get at least a rudimentary Taste SQ 101 knowledge of the subject before making more comments about something that quite frankly you are not expert in.
Go for it TIm! Keep that wine revolution going. Because of your work more of us today choose the wines we like to drink with the food we choose to eat. Bravo!
February 6th, 2010 at 8:16 am
I don’t know why everyone is being a freak about all this. Wine fashion changes just like it has for the past 500 years.
There will always be new discoveries and there will always be an old guard to defend the past.
There has been a strangulation on tastes in wine some of it powered by special interests.
Just drink the wine you like to drink and drink it with whatever you like to eat, unapologetically and without pressure from the “experts” who can only make recommendations based on their own preferences. There is no wine critic that is completely neutral. It’s physically impossible.
Steve I am going to bust on you for your last comment: “Beware the demystification industry. It’s not as pure and disinterested as you might think.”. C’mon dude, don’t paint yourself as a pariah warning the masses of the evils that will befall human kind if they think differently than the “elders”. That’s so not cool.
Now, I’m going to go have leftover pizza with Dom 2000 for breakfast and later were having roast chicken with Malle Sauternes for lunch. It’s the weekend! Woohoo!
February 6th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Nice to see David Rosengarten here, and I have been one of his followers ever since I read Red With Fish, when we each was a child…
February 6th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Thomas P wrote: “Then there’s Tom Merle, who seems to have alluded to Steve and others who write about wine having an extended agenda which, by extension, casts aspersion on journalism, which is not exactly a dying sport these days.”
Virtually everyone in this dialog has an “agenda” if by this we mean an underlying motive driving one’s point of view. I jumped on Steve for accusing TH of being driven by the need to make money in the promotion of his program. But except for those who are retired and are content with their lot, we all need to make money. I don’t believe this reality casts aspersions on journalism, even if you work for the National Enquirer. But perhaps TP can elaborate.
My gripe is that those who make their moola by writing professionally about wine will understandably fine more reasons to debunk consumer outlets since these alternative ways of assessing wine challenge the standing of the expert critic. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out repeatedly, choice always reins supreme–may a thousand flowers bloom with some being more attractive in the marketplace.
This extended conversation has several threads running through it. One has to do with knowledge vs. pleasure. I’m with the hedonists. Wine appreciation is strictly a sensuous experience. The enjoyment we get by knowing about the impact of a 3.7 PH level on Pinot adds dimensionality to our wine drinking experience, but it doesn’t affect our taste buds. That said, experience in tasting more wines more often allows us to expand our range of pleasure as it does with, say, music.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Steve – here is a sampling of some of the the work from just one of the researchers I work with – Dr. Virginia Utermohlen, Cornell University. I will then address how this rall elates to the value of matching people to the critic that best suits their sensitivity and passions. We have Virginia and one of her star graduate students analyzing our current Consumer Wine Preference survey – a critical study that will then be analyzed against several taste senstivity studies underway with UC Davis and the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi that is the source of Steve H.’s original horror!
Dr. Virginia Utermohlen, Cornell University
Research Focus
The relationship of sensory sensitivity (taste, smell, and vision) to determinants of personality, food choice, attitudes toward food and eating, choice of profession, short-term memory, and academic performance.
Educational Background
M.D., College of Physicians and Surgeons, Medicine, Columbia University, 1968
A.B., Physics, Washington University, 1964
Internship and Residency, Pediatrics, St. Luke’s Hospital Medical Center,1968-1971
Research
The research performed at the Taste Science Laboratory is centered around the relationships of taste and smell sensitivity to measures of food choice, eating behavior, personality, and decision-making. Some of our findings (with work in progress):
Highly sensitive tasters tend to be more sensitive than other tasters to most smells as well (Bauer, D. Santi, A., Utermohlen, V. “How Individual Differences in Taste Input Impact Smell and Flavor Perception – An Example of a Complex Process.” InterJournal Complex Systems, Article #364).
Children are significantly more sensitive to taste than their parents – which may explain why you may like some foods now that you would refuse eat when you were a child! (Bauer, D. Santi, A., Utermohlen, V. “How Individual Differences in Taste Input Impact Smell and Flavor Perception – An Example of a Complex Process.” InterJournal Complex Systems, Article #364).
In the food-related professions, highly sensitive tasters tend to be “wine” people; moderately sensitive tasters tend to be chefs; and mildly sensitive tasters tend to be bakers and financial experts (work in progress!).
The role of memory in imagination varies by taster status, with the association of imagination with memory likely to be strong among tasters (”Was Proust a Taster? Taste Sensitivity to 6-n-Propylthiouracil and the Relationships among Memeory, Imagination, Synesthesia, and emotional Response to Visual Experience.” in Food and Foodways, 10:99-109. 2002).
Decision-making style varies by taster status, with mildly sensitive tasters being more likely to choose reasoning as their preferred mode for coming to decisions (”Taste Sensitivity, Smell Sensitivity, and Reasoning: An Interaction of Genes and Culture?” submitted for publication).
We are now conducting large scale screening of non-student populations, such as of attendees at the National Restaurant Association’s Restaurant, Hotel-Motel Show, held May 22-25, 2004, and at BookExpoAmerica, held May 18th-21st, 2006. (concluded – fascinating stuff)
February 6th, 2010 at 11:30 am
This one from Thomas begs for a different post. I know that Dan Berger is a hypersensative taster and even have a picture of his tongue (I have pictures of hundreds of tongues). His hypersensitivity clearly impacts his experience of wine. Steve H. I am guessing is a sensative taster, more toward the tolerant end of the scale. His experiences with alcohol levels and phenolics is completely different than Dan’s. Added on top is the neurological factor: passions, travel, experiences that develop our sense of values, aesthetics, acquired tastes, disposed of tastes and so on. If you are passionate about Porsches you want to find others passionate about Porsches. If you love Lotus (like me) you will find we are wired differently! Same with so many things in life. I am committed to exploring the how and why of consumer wine preferences and building fun and empowering bridges between people so they can more confidently share and explore wines. Everyone is getting so pissed off and cynical it becomes ugly. So here your go, and I can find you examples of this type of disparity for every type of wine made:
“Why does anyone need to find a critic that aligns with his or her personal sensitivity quotient, passions or sense of aesthetics? Laziness? Validation? Explanation of your own desires?”
Dan Berger, January 22, 2010:
“For more than a decade, I have hoped for a miracle. Then last week I realized the worst: Cabernet sauvignon has changed so appreciably that I fear we’ll never see it in the way we once did.
Cabernet has undergone a makeover that has, probably forever, made it little more than a parody of itself, entering a realm that 20 years ago I never would have believed.”
Steve Heimoff, about a week earlier:
“Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon is pretty much as good as it can get — at least, it’s hard to see where it goes from here.”
Hmmm….
February 6th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Steve;
Colleagues part two: The Monell Chemical Senses Center is an independent scientific institute, established in 1968, dedicated to basic research on the senses of taste, smell, and chemesthesis (chemically-mediated skin senses). It is currently headed by Dr. Gary Beauchamp. Gary had to give my presentation in Kyoto on how umami taste in food affects the taste of wine (suppresses umami taste in wine, magnifies bitterness, astrigency and acidity) and mitigation of this effect via bitter-suppressive qualities of salt, restoring wine balance. This was crazy – I was having a travel meltdown and could not be at the symposium and Gary had to give my presentation. His Ph.D thesis turned out to be related directly to bitter-suppressive qualities of salt!
“Drs. Charles Wysocki and Gary K. Beauchamp discover that the ability to smell androstenone is genetic.”
This demo literally stunned about 250 people at the MW Symposium in Napa when I had Chuck Wysocki (my mentor for 20 years) present along with anthropologist Dr. Lionel Tiger and Pycho-sensory specialist Dr. Michael O’Mahony (details in next post). About 80 attendees smelled the exact same container. 1/3 smelled flowers. 1/3 smelled wet wood. 1/3 smelled urine. Same container. Hmmmmmm….:
“Drs. Charles Wysocki and Gary K. Beauchamp discover that the ability to smell androstenone is genetic.”
Chuck’s book published in 1991 – one year after I met him at a wine and food writer’s conference at Beringer and part of my ‘epiphany’ (that seems to really get people acivated). Chuck was conducting taste detection threshold, intensity and memory connections – I was blown away! Not ONE of the writers dared to take the test!!! They were absolutely terrified to find out about their sensitivity!
Chemical Senses: Genetics of Perception and Communication
by Charles J. Wysocki (Editor), Morely R. Kare (Editor)
Education
Ph.D., Psychobiology (Neuroscience), Florida State University
Research Summary
Individuals differ quite substantially in their ability to smell myriad odorants. In some instances a person may not be able to detect an odor when others in the group can clearly perceive it. In other situations all may detect an odor but there is considerable disagreement about what it smells like. I explore this variation at different levels of analyses, e.g., genetic influences, gender differences and the impacts of age and the environment on odor perception. In another area of research I have explored the effects of body odor on the physiology and behavior of individuals who are exposed to the odor. Even among humans there is mounting evidence that we communicate information about ourselves to others via pheromones (chemical communication), often at a subconscious level. This information can be used to identify individuals, to alter hormone systems and to modify mood and emotion.
Wysocki, C. J., Louie, J., Leyden, J. J., Blank, D., Gill, M., Smith, L. et al. (2009, electronic publication). Cross-adaptation of a model human stress-related odor with fragrance chemicals and ethyl esters of axillary odorants: gender-specific effects. Flavour and Fragrance Journal. doi:10.1002/ffj.1927
Wysocki, C. J. & Preti, G. (2009). Pheromones in mammals. In L.R.Squire (Ed.), Encylcopedia of Neuroscience, volume 7 (pp. 625-632). Oxford: Academic Press.
Lundstrom, J. N., Wysocki, C. J., Olsson, M. J., Yamazaki, K., & Preti, G. (2008). Explaining the association between kinship and fertility. Science, 320, 1160-1161.
Sergeant, M. J. T., Louie, J., & Wysocki, C. J. (2008). The influence of sexual orientation on human olfactory function. In J.Benyon, J. Hurst, C. Roberts, & T. Wyatt (Eds.), Advances in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates (pp. 121-130). New York: Springer.
Wise, P. M., Bien, N., & Wysocki, C. J. (2008, electronic publication). Two rapid odor threshold methods compared to a modified method of constant stimuli. Chemosensory Perception. DOI 10.1007/s12078-008-9010-8.
Wise, P. M., Toczydlowski, S. E., & Wysocki, C. J. (2007). Temporal integration in nasal lateralization of homologous alcohols. Toxicological Sciences, 99, 254-259.
Wise, P. M., Canty, T. M., & Wysocki, C. J. (2006). Temporal integration in nasal lateralization of ethanol. Chemical Senses 31, 227-235.
Martins, Y., Preti, G., Crabtree, C. R., & Wysocki, C. J. (2005). Preference for human body odors is influenced by gender and sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 16, 694-701.
Wise, P. M., Canty, T. M., & Wysocki, C. J. (2005). Temporal integration of nasal irritation from ammonia at threshold and supra-threshold levels. Toxicological Sciences, 87, 223-231.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Part three and my primary go-to for info and testing of hypotheses, my mentor for 20 years. He, his colleague Rie Ishii (next post) and 5 of their students are overseeing the tasting protocol for the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi. When you see his work you can see how it relates to new methodologies and protocols for our Consumer Wine Evaluator project. This will all also tie into Dr. Virginia Utemohlen’s work with me. The Consumer Wine Preference survey currently underway was drafted with the input of both parties plus the results of an earlier work I conducted with nearly 7,000 respondents.
MICHAEL A. O’MAHONY
Professor and Sensory Scientist
Department of Food Science and Technology
University of California
SPECIALTY:
Psychophysics
Sensory evaluation of food
Taste function
EDUCATION:
1964 Bsc., Physical Chemistry, Bristol University, United Kingdom
1966 Bsc., Experimental Psychology, Bristol University, United Kingdom
1971 Ph.D., Chemistry and Psychology, Bristol University, United Kingdom
POSITIONS HELD:
Demonstrator, Department of Psychology, University of Bristol, England, 1969-71
Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Bristol, England, 1971-77
Professor and Sensory Scientist, Department of Food Science and Technology, UC Davis, Davis, California, 1977 – present
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Study of he sensory mechanisms and cognitive processes that are the basis for sensory evaluation and consumer testing. Taste psychophysics, Thurstonian models, signal detection, concept formation and measurement, discrimination methods, scaling, cross-cultural studies, statistics.
RECENT SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
It is often important to determine whether very slight differences in food flavor actually exist or not. For this, there are a whole set of tests called difference tests. These vary in their sensitivity; a given judge will discriminate between two foods using one test protocol but not discriminate using another. Even a slight change in the wording of instructions to a judge will affect the search procedure set up in his head and completely alter his performance. This has not been well understood. This lab developed a model based on physiological and brain processing effects to explain such variations. The lab also challenged the conventional theories in this area and demonstrated how they were based on faulty assumptions. A new model combining the best parts of the various rival theoretical approaches has been developed and explains most of the variation in test sensitivity. This can now be used to vary the sensitivity of judges as required for the various types of sensory measurement encountered in the food industry and academic research.
Sensory difference tests have always been ‘all or none’ affairs, giving results in terms of ‘the foods are different’ vs ‘not different’. However, an application of Signal Detection Theory, an approach involving the analysis of the nervous system as a communications system, can provide more sophisticated information. Instead of ‘different’ vs ‘not different’, a measure of ‘how different’ is now available. There are several measures of degree of difference but this lab has developed the R-index, a simple yet robust measure based on minimal statistical assumptions. Because of this, it has wide applicability.
Descriptive analysis provides a description of all the various sensations a food gives to the taster and their relative strengths. It is a widely used technique providing ‘profiles’ of various food products, that can be compared and used to assess characteristics of products which are important for consumer acceptance. However, it is difficult to describe tastes or smells because we have not developed sufficient language to do so. Thus, a language and categorization system has to be developed for each food and judges must be trained to use it. This lab has studied the information processing that takes place in the brain for such a system to be developed. We have developed a theoretical basis and successfully used it to develop techniques to increase the performance and speed up training of judges using this method.
Descriptive analysis requires a lot of training and expense. Some systems need approx. 100 hours to train and calibrate judges before they can be used. This lab has developed an alternative technique called Focused Difference Testing, which requires little training and relies on the natural biases and skills, as well as robust alternative methodology developed in the lab to produce profiles.
It was long suspected that fluctuations in salivary content affected taste sensitivity. This is important because tests that measure taste sensitivity are being used more and more in the diagnosis of various disfunctions like cystic fibrosis, hypertension, adrenal cortical changes (Addison’s disease, Cushing’s syndrome) etc. Although the connection between taste and saliva was suspected, it could not be demonstrated. One reason for this is that as soon as a judge tasted a test stimulus, the environment in the mouth was changed so destroying any effects of saliva. However, a direct connection between saliva and taste sensitivity was established in this lab, using specialized sensory measurement techniques developed by this lab.
As a judge undergoes repeated testing, his taste sensitivity is reduced; this is a perfectly normal sensory function and is called adaptation. Adaptation has been studied extensively in this lab and techniques developed so that sensitivity is not lost during testing.
A common misconception is that there are four basic tastes: ’sweet’, ’sour’, ’salty’ and ‘bitter’. The idea was based on mistaken translation from early German research and, unfortunately, has become established in most textbooks. Methods of measurement based on this fallacious idea have produced many artifactual results. Work in this lab has demonstrated the artifactual nature of these measures, often in the teeth of angry opposition.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
Descriptive analysis and concept alignment. M. O’Mahony. 1991. p. 223-267. IN: H.T. Lawless and B.P. Klein (eds). Sensory Science and Applications in Foods, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
A theoretical note on difference tests: Models and cognitive strategies. M. OÕMahony et al. 1994. J. Sensory Studies 9:247-272.
Sensory measurement in food science: Fitting methods to goals. M. OÕMahony. 1995. Food Technology 49:72-82.
Who told you the triangle test was simple? M. OÕMahony. 1995. Food Quality and Preference 6:227-238.
A new approach to category scales of intensity. K-O. Kim & M. OÕMahony. 1998. J. Sensory Studies 13:241-267.
Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales and intensity. H.-J. Lee et al. 2001. Journal of Sensory Studies 16:327-342.
Hedonic R-index measurement of temperature preferences for drinking black coffee. Pipatsattayanuwong, S. et al. 2001. Journal of Sensory Studies 10:517-536.
Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scales(Green scale). Tae-Young, K. et al. 2002. Journal of Sensory Studies 17:177-192.
Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. B. Rousseau et al. 2002. Food Quality and Preference 13:39-45. Ê
February 6th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
And finally, Dr. Rie Ishii:
Duties
Rie designs, runs and analyzes statistically sensory and consumer testing experiments. She assists in teaching and training of students and visiting scholars to design, perform, analyze and report sensory and consumer testing studies. She also performs basic research into the functioning of the senses and brain design mechanisms and uses this research to develop new and better sensory testing protocols.
This is a key project she was part of and integral part of our on-going studies with her and the students (who we are funding to attend a sensory conference with the proceeds from the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi, in addition to the funds going to the Lodi Today Rotary foundation charitable contributions):
FLAVOR PERCEPTION: SENSORY METHODOLOGY
PROJECT DIRECTOR: O’Mahony, M. A.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Food Science and Technology
UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS,CA 95616
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY: Current consumer and sensory testing procedures like preference or discrimination testing, rating sensation intensity, liking or “likelihood to buy,” were generally developed half a century ago and often lack power, increasing costs to industry. Using cutting edge knowledge of sensory function and information processing in the brain, more efficient and powerful methods are being developed.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate physiological and cognitive variables affecting sensory analysis and consumer testing of foods so as to develop reliable and valid methods. This involves investigation of adaptation, concept formation, Thurstonian modeling and the development of physiological and cognitive models of measurement. Development of more powerful methods has high priority.
APPROACH: Model systems will first be used to investigate and understand taste and cognitive function and to develop theoretical models. From this, measurement methods for taste and sensory evaluation will be developed and applied to food flavor measurement to be more compatible with the human sensory system. Present methods were developed with a view to statistical rather than ergonomic efficiency.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
I don’t know why anyone should be surprised that critics can disagree with each other. It would be odd if we didn’t.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Oh – I forgot this one! Dr. Herb Stone is President of Tragon Research. Jane Robichaud, who I worked with at Beringer for many years, now works with Tragon on high-level sensory wine projects and introduced me to Herb again almost 20 years ago. He was an attendee at a think-tank/wine and food workshop, along with 30 other sensory scientists, that was the point of my ‘epiphany.’
Herbert Stone, Ph.D.Tragon Senior Advisor & Co-FounderA former Director of Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Dr. Stone was President of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) from 2004-2005. With a Ph.D. from U.C. Davis, he has lectured worldwide, is the author of over 125 publications, and holds six patents. Dr. Stone is co-author with Joel Sidel of Sensory Evaluation Practices, one of the most respected texts in the industry. Along with Mr. Sidel, Dr. Stone founded Tragon® in 1974.
Case against ‘Universal Scale’ for sensory evaluation
Dr. Herbert Stone, author of Sensory Evaluation Practices and a pioneer of Quantitative Descriptive Analysis procedures employed wide throughout the food and wine industries, offer these insights into the sensory analysis, the value of descriptive lexicons and the impossibility of creating meaningful ‘universal scale in sensory evaluation’ (see Reference IV):
Much research has been done to understand consumer behavior and there is no doubt much more will be done before we have a better understanding of consumer choice behavior. In this work, one regularly encounters myths about consumer behavior that defy established knowledge about the anatomy and physiology of the senses and observed response behavior. One of these myths is the proposition that consumers can be trained to be invariant… Perceptual skills vary considerably; about 30% of any population cannot differentiate at or above chance among products that they regularly consume. This knowledge is either ignored or summarized in ways that mask differences, and leads to sensory evaluation being labeled as an inexact science.
Another myth focuses on the use of lists of words that describe a product, often referred to as “lexicons” and the implication that the use of such lists will yield a universal language (the aura of a periodic table of the sensory elements for products)… It ultimately was found to have little or no relationship to consumer preferences or purchase behavior. Words used to represent sensations are nothing more than labels and assumptions as to causality are not sustainable without appropriate experimentation. The idea that with such a list the sensory evaluation of products is easily achieved impugns the science of sensory evaluation, the perceptual process, and raises questions as to the role of sensory evaluation within the business environment.
The idea of a universal scale in sensory evaluation is another myth that has considerable appeal but is equally false. It ignores the most fundamental of issues, namely, that each person is uniquely different. Mathematically, one can produce a universal scale but at what expense?
Human sensory behavior is far more complex than what some might like to believe. Any population will exhibit a wide range of sensitivities and preferences; trying to eliminate or mask such differences does not do justice to the science of sensory evaluation nor does it provide confidence in business decisions. Sensory professionals and food science professionals as well, need to recognize these myths and respond to them as they would to snake oil, with all due respect for reptiles.
***Next is some of the neuroscience work!!!! I had forgotten how much cool stuff I have been working over the past 20 years, not to mention the really cool and wonderful people!!
February 6th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Tim,
I understand all the stuff concerning the research of how humans differ genetically, experientially (sp) and perceptively, and that has a decided unfluence on sensory reception.
What I don’t understand is how this information negates the information pertaining to the reaction of our sensory organs to proteins, fats, acids/pH, sugar, alcohol, tannin, and so on, as they relate with one another. In many cases, all it takes for people to “get” a wine and food pairing is for them to slow down and focus (of course, always with exceptions, as people are truly unknowable).
Re, your Heimoff/Berger Cabernet S. reference: aesthetic criticism is merely an opinion. That’s all the weight it deserves. That’s also the message that consumers ought to be receiving–at least as far as I am concerned, but I am not going over that argument again. I just don’t think it makes sense to advise consumers to latch onto someone with whom they agree; how solidly boring a life that would lead to, anyway
February 6th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Make that “influence…”
February 6th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
This comment stream has officially become legendary!
I need to go heat up some popcorn, pour another glass and catch up on all of this…!
February 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Hey 1WineDude – make some for me and move over. I have THREE of these going on!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2010/feb/04/wine-criticism-tasting-flavour-matching?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30104&p=256060#p256060
Thomas – I hope you can keep this all in fun perspective which is my intention but it is getting more and more he’t up! Thanks for all of the great conventional wisdoms to play with!
“What I don’t understand is how this information negates the information pertaining to the reaction of our sensory organs to proteins, fats, acids/pH, sugar, alcohol, tannin, and so on, as they relate with one another.
Where the hell did I say that? You wanted background, I provided it and now you are saying things I don’t think I ever said. Holy moly. Read all of the research papers you asked for, interview all of the scientists I work with and then conduct controlled tasting, phot0graph hundreds of tongues, conduct consumer interviews with 8,300 people in the US and 2,000 people in the UK, correlate the results to the hypotheses you formulated and review everything with your mentors. Then cook lunch for 3,000 people over the course of the year, observe their behaviors, rehypothesise 9is that a word), then my son to school and to the orthodontist, practice guitar and take a nap. Then call Dr. Linda Bartoshuk, interview at least 3 of the people who disagree with her great work. And she just looks at one, tiny dimension of all of this in amazing detail. She called me “her hero” in the Wall Street Journal for expanding the dimensions of this work and finding actual ways it can be applied to consumers.
Now, go tell Dr. Virginia Utermohlen that inspite of the intense, horrible bitterness and burning she experiences with virtually any ‘classic’ wine and food pairing that “In many cases, all it takes for people to “get” a wine and food pairing is for them to slow down and focus (of course, always with exceptions, as people are truly unknowable).” Tell her if she slows down and focuses it will change. NOT She, my mother in law, Barry Goff (poster child for male Sweet tasters and CEO of Tavistock restaurants) and literally millions of consumers for whom wine is their PREFERRED beverage of choice, that they are “truly unknowable.”
This is so easily disproved I can’t wait for lunch. You only need to got to wine and food pairing blogs and boards to see the disagreements – and I bet you are vociferously there disagreeing with many!!
OK – forget all of that – just tell me where I said…”What I don’t understand is how this information negates the information pertaining to…”
I don’t think you get it at all but I am getting lunch ready. While hanging out on the couch with 1WineDude (pass the popcorn, bud). I am going to fetch some of the neural studies so stay tuned!!!
February 6th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Tim,
These comments are where I get the idea that you are questioning the interactions of component make up:
“THE SCIENCES USED TO EXPLAIN THINGS ARE MOSTLY MISGUIDED
I am claiming that the scientific bases for pairing wine and food, which I have studied systematicially, in depth and with experts around the world for over 20 years, turn out to be so counter to conventional wisdoms that it renders virtually every single explanation we use useless.”
If I am misunderstanding you, forgive me for being dense. But I think I am misunderstanding you.
When you do your research with people, what kinds of controls do you employ? I’m curious, because I know that everything that happens during the course of a day has an effect on our senses, therefore, so does everything that happens during our lifetime past.
Tim, not to worry about me getting heated up. I love a debate. The only time I get angry is when it deteriorates into a clash of egos instead of a clash of minds.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Ah! Got it. You misunderstood me in your haste and maybe anger? Am I sensing maybe you might be softening up and we can be friends? I think you will like me and I play guitar, have a hot wife and really cool kids. And I am a good cook. PLUS I am the most desirable designated driver in the Napa Valley. I love debate as well, and thanks for playing.
“THE SCIENCES USED TO EXPLAIN THINGS ARE MOSTLY MISGUIDED
I am claiming that the scientific bases for pairing wine and food, which I have studied systematicially, in depth and with experts around the world for over 20 years, turn out to be so counter to conventional wisdoms that it renders virtually every single explanation we use useless.” Does not imply “this information negates the information pertaining to the reaction of our sensory organs to proteins, fats, acids/pH, sugar, alcohol, tannin, and so on, as they relate with one another.” It implies that we got it all wrong, use bad science and when better science is applied things come out WAY differently.
Now then, “When you do your research with people, what kinds of controls do you employ? I’m curious, because I know that everything that happens during the course of a day has an effect on our senses, therefore, so does everything that happens during our lifetime past.”
This is the nut of everything I do and way, way beyond! 20 years of investigation, in formal, informal, very controlled and less than controlled studies and by conducting presentations and demonstrations to scientists, chefs, wine experts and anyone who dares to come over for lunch. This is where I get the information to base my ‘always waiting for more/better/new information’ assumptions and conlcusions on. When you make it for lunch we will assault all of the conventional wisdoms and metaphors of wine and food matching. Does the ‘big’ wine ‘kill’ the little fish? If the wine smells like brambleberries with a whiff of fenugreek will the duck with brammbleberry and fenugreek sauce be a seamless match? What the f*ck is fenugreek anyhoo and does anyone really get it? What happens with fat and tannin (not what you think).
If astringency is defined as the tactile sensation of coaresness/drying related to loss of lubricity in the oral cavity due to denaturing of proteins in the membranes and saliva, does providing residual negatively charged (or is it positively charged) protein in the form of masticated rare meat (steak) provide new attachement points for the positively charged (or is it negatively charged), colloidally suspended polyphenolics of the wine (tannins) thereby reducing the loss of lubricity and, combined with the replacement of lubrication provided by the fat of the aforementioned protein source (fatty steak) reduce the astringency of a tannic red wine?
No. (sh*t) And this is only one of dozens of C’mon by and I will take you through it systematically yet in a relatively uncontrolled environment. You will still be amazed.
Again – i gots 20 years of this under my belt. The sciences have been provided and I don’t have time to go through them individually. I have been doing this all over the world, with innumerable scientists, chefs, consumers, sommeliers, yahoos, geeks and even family.
What else?
February 6th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
OK everyone – I am offering pictures of Italian sommeliers and normal (oxymoron?) people on wine over at the http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30104&p=256093#p256093 site. C’mon – let’s go!!
February 6th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Hate to add to the temperature in these arguments so I’m sorry if people get their noses out of joint with Tim’s research, observations and ideas. Really, after years of happily spirited arguments with Tim, I remain a staunch fan of his work. I’m mystified why others are threatened by it. We’re learning more and more about how our senses work, how they make us different people and inform our differing preferences. Is that so crazy and revolutionary?
I’ve been doing this wine and food stuff for three decades and I’ve noticed that people like different things (duh) and have always thought that was natural and normal. I’ve always figured our experiences and, uhm, our equipment must differ as well. Those of us who think Tim and the many other professionals exploring these matters are helping the industry aren’t crazy or misguided.
What’s crazy is that people continue to hang onto ossified notions of “correct” wine or “correct” matching of food and wine. Correct for whom? Most of us with experience in restaurants learned long ago that the trick is to match the wine with the customer, not with the food. Just common sense.
Now Tim and others are researching methods to further relax these silly codes of food and wine. Why is that threatening? Or maybe more to the point, why do people suddenly assume all wine knowledge is being threatened? Why cling to a few favorites when there’s a world of flavor out there?
February 7th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Hey Doug! I will send your $20 by PayPal…Thanks, bub.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I don’t know from where the idea that I am angry springs. I’m asking questions, throwing out responses to what is posted, and trying to understand what this is all about.
I think I understand more now, but I still wonder how the science of component interaction on the palate is altered by the fact that people are different as are their life experiences and perceptions. Is it that perceptions change scientific facts, is it that Tim has discovered another way of looking at how wine and food operate on the senses, or is it that the experiments are flawed?
Since I still have no idea what controls are used to prove the efficacy of the experiments, I s’pose I’ll just have to wait until I have that lunch to get the answers to my questions.
Incidentally, in my seminars I never use the “silly codes” or ever reference what is “correct” in pairing wine and food. I simply illustrate components and then try to show how they interact when consumed. I stooped years ago trying to persuade people that there’s a better way to enjoy wine with food than the one they employ, simply because I learned years ago that there is no right or wrong way–only pathways.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:19 am
someday, I’ll master the keyboard on this Mac–stopped, not stooped…
February 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am
I think the remarks below are kinda the source of what Doug is referring to – at best a hostile environment, sometimes a tad paranoid, at worst an angry mob. Certainly not a kind and gentle place!
“Beware the demystification industry. It’s not as pure and disinterested as you might think.”
“I think Tim Hanni had been drinking(swallowing) when he made the comments about food/wine pairings. Seriously, the argument is ridiculous.”
“But to not acknowledge that the decision will impact the meal is ludicrous and seemingly ignorant.”
“A culture built on hucksterism deserves all the hucksters it gets.”
“By the way, I read the Hanni piece a bit like Charlie did, as more pathetic than anything else. Hanni should know better.”
“Finally, blaming the media is too easy and too simplistic. If you think they are getting it wrong, it could be either that your message isn’t intelligible enough for a simpleton journalist to get or that you need to focus better on both the message and the type of journalist you court.”
This is exactly the kind of crap I am working to put and end to! Anyone who dared enter into this conversation could not help but sense the tension and anger – and it started with the original post, and one before condemning me and the Consumer Wine Awards, with no room for understanding and learning. And, by the way, the wine community summarily writes off millions of wine consumers who happen to like sweet wines in a similar fashion With complete ignorance of how valuable, popular and expensive sweet wines have always been in France, Italy and everwhere in the world. And it goes way beyond that as can be seen on this thead – we rail against each other that ‘Parker is too powerful’, this competition is nonsense, Cabernet is in decline/never been better, or this food goes with this or that or that Tim Hanni put his credential after his name or not. Lighten up dammit!
Doug Frost and I had a wonderfully nasty, angry debate years ago. Knock down, drag out for hours with a bemused and somethimes terrified group of a dozen spectators. Lasted until about 3 in the morning I think. Here is the place we finally agreed and where the possibility of a great, lifetime friendship opened up: it is really about people, not the damned beverage after all. It is about our friends, family, communities, neighbors. The willingness of the wine community to respond that someone is ludicrous, ignorant, a huckster, selling snake oil, having a relapse, pathetic unintelligable or anything else – you should all be ashamed of (our)yourselves!! Ha ha – not really. It is human nature! But lighten up, dammit! Debate is great but these are attacks. AND I know every one of you is a human, probably smart, obviously passionate and definately confronted.
But dang it – look out there at all of the anger and fingerpointing over something that I once was told is “grape juice that has not finished going bad yet.” What happened to the beverage of civility and community? Sharing and family? Huh? Huh?
The reason I do what I do in the wine biz is because I love it – passionately. I also know a lot about it in spite of my hard-earned credential. I love what I do even more now that I don’t drink – which is so bizarre and alien a concept many of you are horrified by the mere thought! The reason for this is I have a beautiful wife of 17 years, an unbeleivable family and a great life to look forward to. So there.
I have been working very hard for the past 3-4 years, relatively quietly if you can believe, on closing the loop on many of my diverse and co-related projects. I will never achieve completion on everything because I am on an expedition and every day, literally, something new, better or even something that completely invalidates what I thought to be true crops up. But I can tell you I have made huge progress and closed enough of the loops to present something I think (save the delusional remarks – I know, I know), can make a profound difference for wine lovers, critics, consumers and the wine trade.
The reason I invite you all to lunch is it provides a place where you can experience what I have to offer. At my home I can let you experience what we have found out about wine and food that seems so shocking, show you the research, the surveys, the data, the pictures of hundreds of blue moist tongues (yuck) and very hopefully share the table with people who have radically different taste physiology. This is when it hits home, “you get what? I am experiencing something completely differently…” This is what happened to Loiver Thring – he took a piece of it and shared, then faced the wrath of the wine community.
When conversation turns to HOW we each create our points of view and opinions via neural-gastronomic programming you cannot imagine the conversations it sparks. All you need to do is once experience a wine and food dinner where people who have been scolded their entire life (hypersenstitive and sweet tasters) that they now have permission to drink the wine they love with the food they love. Un-friggin-believable. And guess what – good for eveyone involved with any enterprise having to do with wine!
I have stated over and over – I love Steve Heimoff, Dan Berger, Bob Parker and Jancis Robinson. What I am saying is that there is also room, and a really cool new way, to have consumers generate peer-to-peer and consumer-to-consumer wine evaluations and ratings. AND a way to help MORE consumers confidently shop for the wine critics that are a match for their own Sensitivity Quotient, aspirations, values and aesthetics.
All of this kinda got lost in defending my intelligence, honor, motives, credentials and even my sobriety. No said ‘yer momma wears army boots.’ She didn’t, thank you very much. She is dead. I will be too. Same to y’all. Now – what the hell are we going to do between now and then?
I have an idea – come to lunch? I was in Whole Foods yesterday and the person who runs the Culinary Center said, “we HAVE to do another tasting!” It occurred to me we can organize a Webinar or something and all have lunch together globally. Lunch may be at 3:00 in the morning for some of you. If you are in NorCal please consider attending, we can fit about 30 people in the space. I am working to find out how to pull this off but I will post a list of wines and foods you will need to have, plus your computer, and I will do a live feed and PowerPoint presentation while you sing along. Anyone interested?”
Thanks, love and peace from Napa.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Now that four days and some 18,000 words have been spent, I am really impressed by social media. Steve – these past two posts are the greatest juxtaposition you could hope for. From the classic Mr Hugh Johnson to the…well, what do you say when someone burns so much time, effort, and wastes so much time and effort. I can only try to hear Hugh Johnson say in the same paragraph….[what the f*ck, and my wife is hot.] I am not surprised that has been edited from your site. Had that comment remained up, I would not have written this. When I saw it had been removed, well…What a waste.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
WOW. Shut off the computer for a couple of days to get some rest and see what one misses! Fascinating stuff. And not one bit of it useful to me as a winegrower.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
John, maybe not useful. But fun, no?
February 10th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Yes, a lot of fun! And conducted with a level of respect and conviviality not often encountered on the interwebs.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
WOW! ladies and gents that was a lot more interesting and fun…(I am not certain about useful) than any thread I have read in a long time. Even better than Dr Vino vs The Advocate last spring. Frostie and Hanni hold a debate prior to the internet….wish I had been there. Congratulations to all the contributors as you are all right. Remember there are only 365 drinking occasions a year, make them all matter. Thanks for the start of all this Steve, I hope you enjoy the symposium this week.
BTW the seasoning works especially at home…Cheers
February 10th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Hey Tim, looking forward to seeing you again, whenever and wherever that may be.
February 11th, 2010 at 12:37 am
Hi John Kelly – contact me and I will fill you in on things you may find of interest and how all this may (or may not!) pertain to a winegrower!
Steve – any time and hope to see you soon as well.
Thomas Pellachia – great talking with you Sunday and keep on keeping on you hypersensitive fool!
And Chris – chill out.