A Pro's Gotta Do What a Pro's Gotta Do

The inimitable Fredric Koeppel is in town this week.  His schedule is intense: Nine wine events in eight days, ranging from small vertical tasting dinners to the extravaganzas like the Gambero Rosso Tre Bicchieri shindig on the 19th, his last day in New York.  Talk about palate fatigue.

Ah but he is a disciplined professional.  As the Italians would say, mitico (awesome).

Here's an example that put me to shame. 

We met for dinner a few nights ago at our friend Julie's house in the West Village.  Julie made a roast of lamb which was cooked to perfection.  The meal was simple but hearty and delicious, a terrific accompaniment to the Burgundies that Fredric had bought that day.  They were of the "Californian" 2003 vintage, one a Morey-St. Denis and the other a Chambolle-Musigny.  I was alone in preferring, slightly, the Morey-St. Denis, which was earthier, autumn-leafier and less rich.  More than that I cannot tell you.  I was, shall we say, in the moment, chatting and eating and drinking.  Not Mr. Koeppel.

Fredric spent the meal tasting, retasting, scribbling down notes, forming new impressions, no doubt coming up with splendid adjectives.  (We discussed his "chiming" and "ringing" acids.)

I said, "Gee, I should be doing that."  Rather perfunctorily, I admit.

The two of them chimed in unison, "Yes, you should."

But I knew the notes would eventually wind up on one of his web sites, either the blog or Koeppel on Wine.  I didn't want to upstage him.  And, OK, I was having too good a time to do my Duty.

Anyway, I'm reminded of something Eric Asimov wrote on The Pour the other day.  "I think people spend far too much time admiring, tasting and describing.  The Pour is about drinking and enjoying..."

There's my defense.  A borrowed one, to be sure, but gaudeamus igitur.

Comments

[Fredric Koeppel]

Let me say this about that.
Why can't enjoyment include admiring and describing? Would we say that enjoying art or music or literature must exclude admiring and describing? Of (legal) substances that involve our pleasure principle, our taste buds and so on, wine (that is, excellent or great wine) certainly demands attention on many levels. If you're sitting at the dinner table with a great bottle and go back to the wine again and again, you notice, of course, that the wine changes, develops in the glass, offers more and more of itself as the minutes pass. Are we not supposed to comment on such matters; are we forbidden to say, "Whoa, this wine is bringing up so much spice now" or "Have mercy, the flavors just get deeper and denser" because those comments somehow intrude on our enjoyment? No. The more we bring to wine, in knowledge and appreciation as well as the capacity for pure delight, the more we will enjoy it. In fact, I would say that enjoyment without knowledge (and the expressive ability) amounts to a form of ignorance. But then I taught poetry for many years; the notion is engrained.

[Terry Hughes]

Calm down, old boy. I understand where Eric is coming from, and I understand where you're coming from. You're both right in the sense that the wine's there for drinking and enjoyment AND a sharing of impressions expressed by more than smacking lips and making yummy sounds.

I think what Eric was getting at was the overly analytical, point-scoring mentality that tends to make wine drinking an exercise in show-off blowhardism. At least that's what I think.

BTW, you sure do get professorial when you're cranky. It's sort of cute, though.

[Fredric Koeppel]

That's what my students always said.