In general, which do you prefer -- the long detailed ones you see on many many sites or the quick summaries with or without a score, such as you see on, for example, Jancis Robinson's?
Your chance to chime in, kids.
As to which I prefer..."Brevity is the soul of wit."
Even when there is a chiming, ringing, clanging or clunking acidity situation.
Short.
Posted by: Dale Cruse | January 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM
well, you know how i feel. i like reviews that give me a sense not only of how a wine looks, smells, tastes and feels but an approximation of the spirit of the thing, what makes it individual, its reason for being. A review that goes "Snappy, attractive, filled with flavor" is useless as far as I'm concerned; that could apply to thousands of wines.
Posted by: fredric koeppel | January 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
long and with a narrative structure. I have to agree with Koeppel.
Does anybody actually read The Wine Advocate or merely use it as a buying tool? I think they use it as a buying tool because it's dreadfully boring for what it is.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Great. No unanimity. I'm waiting for more comments. I'd like to hear what you all have to say just on general principle.
FK, you know I think your prose poems about wine are among the very best. There's a need for that with some wines. But, IMO, I think other wines will do just fine with a two-line summary and a score (or not a score), a la Jancis.
After a while, the reviews all do run together. All too often they can seem like puffery, whether to support a "faith position" ('I love my big oaky hedonistic fruit farts, I love love LOVE them') or for friends/clients, etc.
Posted by: Terry Hughes | January 26, 2008 at 07:09 PM
quality, not size, is what counts. get your mind out of the gutter, first of all, i'm talking about wine reviews. i like reviewers who give enough of their story with a particular wine so that i can determine whether or not i'm interested in trying the wine. flavor and aroma descriptions on their own are less compelling to me than if they are accompanied by something about the experience of drinking the wine.
Posted by: Brooklynguy | January 27, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Exactly, brooklynguy. i want a review to tell me why, out of thousands of wines available in a particular grape or genre, i should by this particular one.
Posted by: fredric koeppel | January 27, 2008 at 01:40 PM
The last two comments, great as they are, sort of beg the question as to long vs. short reviews, IMO. A very succinct review can tell you everything you reasonably need to discern whether or not the wine is for you. What are the essential elements of such a review?
1. BRIEF description of the wine's color, aroma and taste.
2. Its region, grapes, winery.
3. Its price point and explicit comment on its relative value.
4. MAYBE...Some idea as to where it may be found, whether in stores or even restaurants. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving out local information; if the writer lives in Chicago, then she or he tells where it might be purchased in that area.
I love the narrative of an interesting wine and/or winery, as Brooklynguy suggests. I must say, however that I think that sort of article can be a little samey after a while, too. Let's face it, many of the winemakers who make the interesting juice are driven by similar passions (love of their ancestral land, terroir, preserving "legacy" grapes, reviving old methods, preferably tempered by positive modern techniques, the desire to make something with real character in the midst of so much mass-market wines, etc.) After a while this too sounds like boilerplate if you don't inject an "off" angle to the story.
All of which is not to say that every one of these people should be discounted as spewing a line of bullshit. Some are but most I've met are clinging to their principles and vision at the risk of financial ruin. They mean it and they're staking their lives and their families' on their goal of making "real wine" in tiny quantities for a tiny tranche of the market.
Problem is, sometimes their stories are far more compelling than their wines.
Well, I see I'm drifting away from the central question which I myself posed. Your comments have stimulated a lot of thought and I appreciate them.
Is there "more at the door"? (I played Tommy recently, the 'ole bleedin' fing.)
Speak up! Keep it coming! I feel we're gnawing at the edge of a big wheel of Stilton.
Posted by: Terry Hughes | January 27, 2008 at 07:05 PM