Wine tasting is bull

[Bytowner]

http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit ... -496098276

It's hard to say what this says about beer tasting. I would certainly argue that beer flavours are more distinct owing to the number and nature of ingredients. That said, I think the nature of the human palate makes many of the more verbose beer reviews suspect.

[Ceecee]

I'm certainly guilty of letting RB or BA reviews affect my opinion, and enjoyment for that matter, of a beer. I try to avoid any preconceived notions about a beer before tasting it, which can be difficult.

[JasonTremblay]

http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit ... -496098276

It's hard to say what this says about beer tasting. I would certainly argue that beer flavours are more distinct owing to the number and nature of ingredients. That said, I think the nature of the human palate makes many of the more verbose beer reviews suspect.

Some random points from someone who's done some judging ...

Generally, the score itself is not the thing, but the comments and the rankings of the beers within the flight.

You always have several judges go through the flight because everyone has different thresholds for detecting different chemicals. I.e., one person might say "butter bomb" (diacetyl), someone else might simple detect it as a not unpleasant tang in the aftertaste. The first is a major fault in all styles, the second a component of some styles. You absolutely need a panel of judges to compensate for these quirks. And, frankly, there's some variability in people's perceptions day to day.

And, dear god, judging a flight of RIS? Those things are palate wreckers. In that case, you need your judges to drink the beers in different orders.

When it comes to reviews ...

If the review isn't done blind, some breweries' reputations can move the score up or down -- have a look at some of the outlier scores from last weekend's IPA challenge and then look at the Ratebeer scores.

Jason

[Craig]

I think this applies in a lot of the same ways to beer, and it's almost certainly getting worse as craft beer becomes more popular/upscale/snooty. Less so than for wine probably, but it's still there.

I think that there's a certain amount of truth to wine reviewing being bullshit, but there are still some pretty noticeable differences in the quality of wines. Shitty, mass-produced wine made in large batches is different from well-made wine in a lot of the same ways that mass-produced beer is from craft. Any old wine expert will be able to pick out the differences between those bottles blind. The thing about wine is it's always been dominated by craft brands, to the point that even most cheapo table wines are made in the craft style.

In beer, I see a lot of the same sorts of things start to pop up when people start going on and on about how important the choice of glassware is (which I do think matters, just not nearly to the extent some people claim it does) or when they start throwing five or six descriptors out on the aroma of a beer. Here's the first review I found on ratebeer just now:

Aroma is roasted malts, chocolate, coffee, bourbon and vanilla. Flavour is roasted malts, chocolate, chocolate, coffee, medium sweet, bourbon, vanilla and a little coconut.

That reads a lot like a wine review, doesn't it? I'm sure if I looked around I could find much worse.

The other thing I'm starting to notice with beer is how silly some people are about cellaring. When someone pops a bottle out of their cellar, takes a sip, then tells me how it's different from how he remembers it three years ago I can't help but be skeptical. I mean you're telling me that this beer, which you tried once three years ago, has changed it's fourth most dominant flavour? Really? I can't remember what I had for dinner on Saturday, never mind the aftertaste of a beer I had in 2009.

[Bytowner]

I agree that it's getting worse, and mostly from people who have declared themselves beer experts within the past couple years.

Aroma is roasted malts, chocolate, coffee, bourbon and vanilla. Flavour is roasted malts, chocolate, chocolate, coffee, medium sweet, bourbon, vanilla and a little coconut.

I actually don't have a problem with that. Those are all, I think, easily discernable aromas and flavours (though 'bourbon' is a bit silly) and broad enough that any Joe off the street could pick them out. I think one of the best approaches, and I don't do this myself, is to use flavour discriptors rather than comparisons. So 'medium sweet' is useful, as are 'roasty', 'floral', 'bitter', 'fruity', etc. That said, some comparisons are certainly apt when it comes to beer, and we all know what people are talking about when they say 'pine', 'grapefruit', 'caramel', 'dark fruits' or even 'marmalade'.

This kind of thing (from BA) is where it gets dumb:

Succulent flavors of molassas, charred toffee, peanut brittle [...] Plumbs, figs, dates, raisons, bruised cherries, and prunes [...] Sweeter rums, fruitcake breadiness and light chocolates [...] Moderate aged notes of sherry and soy ...

Bruised cherries???

[Craig]

Yeah, there are definitely a lot worse out there, I was just saying that the descriptions beer snobs are using are starting to look a lot like the ones wine snobs are using.

That one wasn't so bad, but he still used 7 descriptors (that's including "sweet" but ignoring the second chocolate) which is a lot to expect of anyone's palate.

[markaberrant]

A friend posted that link of FB yesterday, this was my response:

This article is all over the map, but so be it.

First off, I agree, our sense of taste is extremely primitive - we can only taste sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami. When we talk about taste, we are really talking about sense of smell, which is unbelievably complex and is directly tied to the complex part of our brain where we store long term memories. That's why you smell fresh baked cookies, and vividly recall a specifc moment 30-50 years ago when you baked cookies with your long since passed away grandma.

So:
- Our sense of smell is complex.
- All people are more/less sensitive to certain aromatic compounds.
- Some people are more intune with their sense of smell (often referred to as a "highly trained palette," which again is not a true statement).
- some people are better able than others to articulate their sense of smell through words. Some of whom have an advanced vocabulary.
- all odours are extremely complex and highly volatile.

This all adds up to a high degree of subjectivity. I know this has become problematic in today's society, where everything needs to be black and white, compartmentalized, labelled, structured and scientifically measured. But the real world just aint like that.

Then throw in the stereotypical pompous, smarmy wine critic, who is trying to outdo/outsmart the other wine critics, and it is no wonder people think it is BS.

But this still doesn't mean it is pointless. What is important is to learn how to identify flavours and aromas. Most "beer drinkers" are completely unable to tell you what "beer" tastes like because they have never, ever thought about it.

Learning how to, and taking the time to savour, enjoy and appreciate food and drink is fun and takes the experience to a higher level beyond simply cramming garbage in your maw for the purposes of providing sustenance and drunkeness.

So yeah, the "professional" wine critic is annoying indeed, and yes, there is a high degree of subjectivity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop and take the time to smell the roses.

Come to one of my tasting events, and you'll see it isn't all bunk.

So yeah, I get sick and tired of "bruised cherries" descriptions too, and yeah I'm jaded by the wine snob douchery that is bleeding into the beer world thanks to the growth of craft beer.

But I don't like these sorts of articles that are basically telling Joe public that "ignorance is bliss" and "you don't want to become an asshole like these people, do you?"

[cratez]

A few thoughts:

1) People taste what they taste. It's a matter of perception, not scientific accuracy. If they choose to talk about those perceptions, write them down for their own personal notes/tracking, or share them with others online, why should anyone take issue with that?

2) An argument can be made that nitpicking whether a review is too "verbose" or bang on - which, like the review itself, is a matter of personal opinion - is just as much bullshit as listing off flavours that aren't there. Granted, I'm of the view that a rating should at least be long enough to be saying something (and maybe even be useful to others), but for the most part I don't give a shit.

3) The blogger paints tasting/reviewing as a pretentious exercise in futility, but I think the people who actually take the time to do it find it to be a fun way to learn more about beer, wine, whisky, etc, develop their palates, and keep track of what they consume.

4) While I can't speak for wine critics, I'm not sure people believe tasting/reviewing/rating is or should be an objective practice based on a "verifiable set of standards that everyone adheres to" (laughed pretty hard when I read that). Sure, trained judges might use style guidelines or some other criteria to rate competition entries, but ultimately reviews and ratings are heavily influenced by subjective/hedonistic factors, and I think that's well known.

5) Who is io9.com again?

So yeah...I'm jaded by the wine snob douchery that is bleeding into the beer world thanks to the growth of craft beer.

But I don't like these sorts of articles that are basically telling Joe public that "ignorance is bliss" and "you don't want to become an asshole like these people, do you?"

Agreed.

[Bytowner]

1) I don't buy that. Saying you taste something isn't the same as actually tasting something. One of the principle points of the article is that in most cases you couldn't possibly taste what you say you're tasting. The flavours described are more about how much you shelled out, what the label looks like, where you're drinking, and how big of a prick you are than the actual flavours. And it's not a matter of harmlessly blogging about things or keeping a diary, this stuff is big business.

2) I guess you can make whatever argument you want. But no, I don't think saying "mangos (with skins)" is the same as saying "yeah, that's absolute nonsense".

3) People seem to be confusing the title of the post with what's actually said. It's clearly taking aim at competitions and the legitimacy of professional tasting.


4) Is it? If a professional taster can't tell the difference between table wine and a sought after vintage or a white wine and a white wine with food colouring I think that goes beyond "verifiable set of standards that everyone adheres to". It points to dishonesty and a massive scam.

[groulxsome]

That's a pretty awful article. Wine/beer scores are not objective measures of a wine's quality, they are quantified measures based upon an individual's taste. If you trust that person's or organization's sense of taste, then the score might be useful in sorting out which wine to try when confronted with a long and detailed list. For example, I tend to find users (and, you know, real life people) on beeradvocate and untappd who seem to enjoy the same tastes I enjoy and trust their opinion over the statistical one on the top of the page. Most times when faced with a tough choice about wine, it's easier to have a number from a taster you like and trust than a long review. The quantification makes pragmatic sense to me on that level, though it is unfortunate that some people take them as some attempt by tasters to coordinate their tastes to an objective measure.

Second, to beset obtuse vocabulary is simply slipshod. Sure some descriptions like "the aroma of fresh rain as it struck my childhood sandbox and trickeld down the metal of my slowly rusting Tonka truck" can be deeply and uselessly personal, many smells which might be obscure but still shared can be quite useful. For example, when I first smelled a peach blossom I could pick up the aroma in lots of hoppy beers and the smell seemed more exact than, say, just peaches. Aromas are hard to pin down and I always find having a wider vocabulary to express them, coupled with smelling everything with interest, helps in finding new astes/aromas in things. Visiting a winery and smelling rain on clay, for example, sounds tediously pretensions when you write about it in a beer review, but if you can get that very specific aroma and it helps you enjoy the beverage, then what harm? Personally, I love verbose reviews. Often they suggest an aroma that I might not have noticed and quite often that benefits my drinking experience. Power of suggestion? Sure, but if it's suggesting that my beer/wine is much nicer than it actually is then I'll take all my beers with a paragraph of Proust.

Third, do wine people think they can taste colour? The red/white blind thing seems odd only because I would never venture to guess a colour of a beer based upon just its taste. I can homebrew a light "dark" tasting beer or, even easier, a dark, very light tasting beer (Guinness?). The colour of a beer/wine is a different aesthetic altogether and to just boil it down into another aspect of taste is silly. It works its way into the score, for sure, but it's certainly not meant to be a reflection of how good it tastes.

If you're shelling out big bucks for a bottle of wine/beer just because it's "supposed to be better" or "it has good reviews" without any education then you really, really deserve what you get. I am reminded of folks in the Westy line at the LCBO pondering what it might taste like, only to walk past the La Trappe Quad without passing notice. Is there a difference between La Trappe Quad and Westy (or Rochefort/Abby 12), sure, if you know the general taste of a Quad - if you know the grammar of that taste/aroma - then you'll likely be able to choose and enjoy the one you like the most. If you're new to the style and wanting to start at the "top," you're likely not getting anything at all from the bigger price tag for the bigger score. If you're chasing "whales" or expensive wines without spending the time learn about them, to become something a little more than an "amateur," then don't expect things to taste better because they cost more. If you just want something to go with a meal or - heaven forbid - get drunk, then style is more important to know about than some voice of god number from a taste.

Wine tasting (and beer tasting) isn't bullshit. Not giving a shit is. And I mean not giving a shit both about being educated about what you drink if you care about it at all (it's fine not too), but also to not give a shit when posting some blog "debunking" beverage ratings without trying to see how they are used. Yah, "screw the experts," and screw giving a shit too.

[Bytowner]

Jesus people are reading a heck of a lot into the post that isn't actually there.

[Belgian]

Who cares what people think, drink what you like and describe it the way you like.

I know my descriptive abilities are subjective, personal and limited. Buddy Boy doesn't have to point this out, I have been aware of this the whole time I've developed an appreciation (and criticism) of wine and beer. It's not lost on me that the most experienced 'super taster' has chinks in the armor, and the 'awesomest' 92-94 WS scored wine is deliberately overpriced for the suckers who don't drink what they like but drink what they believe they should.

Beware of some Food & Drink recommendations, and 'Vintages Tasting Panel' notes. They are often there to generate revenue - not offer the LCBO's actual best wines for the type & price point.

[JerCraigs]

If the review isn't done blind, some breweries' reputations can move the score up or down -- have a look at some of the outlier scores from last weekend's IPA challenge and then look at the Ratebeer scores.

I agree with you for the most part, but it can go both ways. I know I personally try to always be objective but I'm sure a brewery I like gets treated a touch more gently then one I am not fond of. That's human nature. I have been pleased to find that often my scores of blind vs. not blind, or over time are frequently +/- a bit not that different. In other cases they vary more significantly.

That said, I have a number of cases where it is the reverse, where a good beer gets mentally downgraded because I expected more from that brewery, or based on its RB/BA reputation.

I'm not sure the IPA challenge is a great example for a couple of reasons, mostly that there are more factors beyond just tasting blind. Scores from Sunday may differ quite a bit from Saturday just based on changes to a cask (e.g. more or less cloudy, more or less carbonation, etc.) Some of the casks are not necessarily a good reflection of what those beers are like on tap/bottled/etc.

[JerCraigs]

One of the strengths of a competition like the IPA Challenge, Ratebeer scores, or a site like Rotten Tomatoes is the aggregation. If 99/100 people say a beer/film is awesome, it's probably good odds that it is at least decent. With wine it seems more common that a wine receives a score based on the opinion of one reviewer. Both types of reviews are tools that the consumer can use when choosing something.

Another strength is the relative transparency of those sites. A reader can see who (or at least their avatar) is rating what, and often other details (I now date and note the location of all my ratings for example) etc. One issue with "closed" competitions such as many of the major beer competitions is that without knowing who was judging, what criteria they were using, and what beers were in the competition I have no means to help me gauge how well the results might match my own tastes and preferences.


If I sort my ratings by the score I gave the beer, I rated 49 of my top 50 higher than the Ratebeer average. (The other 1 is Westveleteren 12!)

If I sort my ratings by the Ratebeer Score, the majority of my ratings are lower that that score. On the one hand you could argue that RB scores are not a good indicator for how much I am going to like a beer, but of those top 50 I rated all of them at least 3.6/5.0 or higher. Personally I think that means if I use the scores to pick stuff, factoring in style, etc. then it’s probably a good chance that I will at least like a new beer.

[markaberrant]

We are maybe muddling a couple different topics.

But yeah, "professional" reviews and scores are highly skeptical. I'll give them that.

The general public typically wants to be told what is good. And they will lap it up without question, because a trusted expert told them so. Look no further than the Oprah syndrome. Or people who buy Bose stereos and Beats headphones.

When talking about beer, wine and spirits, it is confusing for the unintiated to determine quality and preference. I'm personally trying to get my head wrapped around wine and spirits, and it isn't easy when starting out, but I at least know enough not to simply rely on marketing or price point. By the way, the best way to learn this stuff is to host a "bring a bottle" tasting event with your wine/spirit friends.

One of my co-workers also works on weekends at a premium wine store. What blows her away is how many of our peers (Execs, professionals, etc) that come into the store and buy wine simply based on price point, they want something expensive. When she tries to talk to them about varietals, food pairing, or flavour profile, they have nothing to say. When she suggests a similar wine, maybe even cheaper, or potentially better quality, if it isn't a name they recognize, they won't consider it. For them, selecting a bottle of wine is all about the status symbol, they are no more educated than the wino or college kid buying the rot gut stuff.

I find this fascinating, hadn't really thought much about it before, just further proves that most people don't know much about what they are buying, and the differences in products.