Jancis Robinson: critics should show more humility
April 21, 2008
Sophie Kevany
Wine critic Jancis Robinson MW has called wine critics 'parasitical' and has urged them to be more humble and honest.
Speaking at the WineCreator conference in Ronda, Spain, conference president Robinson said, 'We must always remember that we are parasites on the business of winemaking.'
Robinson further exhorted journalists to be more honest.
'We know how winemakers like to keep us sweet,' she continued, exhorting journalists to say what they really think about wines – and to be more humble.
'We must realise we only have one palate,' she said.
The issue of critics' attitudes to wines - and winemakers' responses to consumer demands – arose several times during the two day meeting.
Peter Sisseck, winemaker for Pingus in Ribera del Duero, was angered by the suggestion made during the conference by Decanter editor Guy Woodward that some winemakers make wines to suit the palates of certain critics.
'I don't even think it is possible to do this,' he said, calling Woodward's remarks arrogant for implying winemakers do not have their own opinions.
Robinson said that a comment by a US critic - that it is relatively easy to describe a wine with a lot fruit or tannin, and harder to describe an elegant wine - had sent a chill down her spine.
She further condemned the contradictory nature of some critics as 'scary', citing an incident wherein one critic described what he didn't like about Spanish wine Vega Sicilia, but nonetheless gave it a good mark.
Have your say... To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com, making sure the relevant headline is in the subject field
Way to go Jancis. Like the saying goes 'if you don't know how to cook, you teach; if you don't know how to teach, you criticize! CB, St Augustine, Florida
Re: Peter Sisseck's comment that winemakers don't make wines to suit critics. You are dead wrong. That is not an opinion, I could give you a list of winemakers in several countries who deliberately make wine to suit well known critics.
You may also like to know that some big wine companies vary the wines going to different markets to suit local tastes. That is, same label, slightly different wine.
I have no problem with this. As a management consultant, not a winemaker, wine is a commercial product sold into a competitive international market.
If you want to dream on, so be it, but don't assume that others have their heads entirely in the clouds.
If your success and financial future is enhanced by positive ratings from critics, what is wrong with this?
It is no different from a restaurant or any other type of business receiving good press.
I would also argue that wine quality and diversity has never been greater. I'm in my 50's and have been drinking wine since a young age. It is now miles better than 30 years ago, and the diversity is remarkable, both in the number of producers and styles. Mark Dignam, Sydney, Australia
Well done Jancis Robinson, it needed to be said. It could be that 'keeping us sweet' influences some. Re: Pingus, perhaps the winemakers like that style too. Duh! Maggie Beale, Hong Kong
Jancis is, in my humble (!) view, right and wrong. Wine critics/ are/ parasites sitting on the business of winemaking, but sometimes an animal needs a parasite to survive and I think that wine business needs critics to flourish. The problem has always been one of honesty, and I got so fed up of critics not saying when a wine was terrible that I started my own website to express my opinions on wine. It has got me into a little warm water with certain distributors in the UK when I have commented on a bad wine, but, like the celebrity who claims to want privacy from the press and then is caught flashing her knickers to awaiting photographers when drunk, the wine industry has to take the good, when their wine is praised, and the bad, when it isn't. The problem has always been that critics have not been critical on bad wine, opting to just not write about them.
I disagree however, with the need to be humble. I appreciate that a winemaker in some hidden corner of France may have put their heart, soul and money, into a wine and for a critic with influence to go straight in and say "it is rubbish and you shouldn't buy it" is unfair. They should quantify their dislike of the wine, saying it is good but too expensive, or that there are better wines from alternative producers for the same price. But as a huge proportion of wines that people drink on a regular basis are formulaic creations, dictated by budget and profit margin, I think it is a wine critics job to be brutal. There are some good wines created this way, but there are also a huge number of bad wines and the customer, the person that buys the wines that keep wine retailers, distributors, producers and critics in a job, is owed a forthright and blunt opinion from those people with the biggest microphone. Peter Wood
Three cheers for the lady..once again it had to be a woman to speak out loud and clear. I am a staunch believer in women especially in the wine world..we are seeing so many do what men have not done, in what is supposed to be a "mans' world"..Just to mention a few.. Donatella Cinelli Colombini, with her Prime Donne in Tuscany, The Duval Le Roy..Champagne story..and many others.
Thank you ladies, for bringing life and new ideas into a world that was growing too old! Victor Bonello
Obviously Peter hasn't been to the Barossa lately. Ian MacTavish
It is by no means an "accident" of palate that, of a sudden, California pinots are screamingly hot friutbombs that are scraresly distinguished from Ozzie shiraz. And if Parker's leaden palate demanded this and the usual goats stampeded, there's no wonder the winemakers went for the currency the herd demanded and produced the Molotov Cocktails of recent experience. And Parker knows best, right?
Spaniards of good intention are no less dependent on the likes of Parker, with a one trick palate, but who dictate what we should drink. They produce the alcoholic fruitbombs that would gladden a Bowery wino with the pretext of elegance that would make an Ozzie blush. But if we wanted Port....
The truth of the matter is that the shorn sheep of trailer park wine dilletantisme have no time to taste... only time to pretend to know...and they'll buy anything over a 92 of a 100 rating without a drop on the tongue. How nice that it all tastes alike, and so convenient.
The magic of wine lies in its very diversity... the nuances of soil, ok terroir, climate, locale...the genius of the winemaker and what he divines that makes his product a sensory art....that is profoundly DISTINCTIVE.
Critics can be helpful, if only to cause interest. But it is the choice, if not the responsibility, of winelovers to trust to their own preferences or consign themselves to same as turkeys in the rain. Merv T
Let me see if I get this straight, These people go to a conference “humbly” called Winecreators and Ms Robinson is calling for humility? God supposedly took 7 days to create the world, how long did it take them to create a wine? John, USA
Having a healthy dialogue within the broader wine community is obviously important. Issues like the power wine critics have on the trade are relevant and necessary. However, the tone in which this particular topic is addressed by critics consistently reeks of insecurity, and false modesty. I happen to think Jancis Robinson is one of the true geniuses of the trade, but often find her writing hard to enjoy because of her constant defensiveness towards the opinions of others. I would encourage her to follow her own advice and realize that she is only “one palate” among many, and not get so worked-up when another critic likes a particular vintage of Chateau Pavie, for example, that she does not. Instead, I would encourage all critics to be confident in your palate, submit your opinions without attacking others, and trust that that is enough. For all the heat that Parker takes from other wine professionals, and even though my tastes rarely line-up with his, I commend him for his commitment to offering up his reviews with no apologies. Ironically, when critics attack others of influence within the industry, it comes across as sour grapes and makes them less likable. If more critics were to speak of “him who must not be named” in more accepting tones, I'm positive Parker's influence would be reduced through the rise in popularity of other, less insecure critics. Eric Southward, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jancis's term of humbleness perhaps doesn't sit right but but what really galls me are wine critics judging wines based on style - 'ooh I like that one better than the one you like coz "blah blah" - often the reasons are completely hedonistic and at the end of the day a wine of equal worth gets shunted for someone elses opinion because they have a nice voice or show a bit of cleavage - get objectivity back onto the page - I think 'Humbly' in Jancics's terms may well be interpreted as "subjectivity has no place in a critics armoury - it merely gilds the lilly" Consumers deserve the truth because they'll never get it off a back label. LOL
Craig Markby, Adelaide Hills, Australia
Some interesting points raised - my comments as follows:
I reckon Guy Woodward is correct - and winemakers can certainly make wines to suit the critics or the market. Peter Sisseck is correct in stating that winemakers have their own opinions, but often they have to go against their own opinions if they want to score with certain critics and in certain markets.
To some extent the US critic is correct in that it is easier to describe a big, blockbuster wine - it takes a lot more experience and skill to describe an elegant, restrained yet classy wine. I guess Jancis's point though is that if one is a professional wine critic, then this shouldn't be a problem.
Re. the comment about giving a wine a good mark even if the critic doesn't like the wine: I think it is important for a wine critic to be able to evaluate a wine objectively. Just because a wine critic doesn't like the wine personally, if he/she recognizes the quality of the wine then the critic should score the wine well (with a comment about his/her personal dislike of the wine). For example, a critic may not personally like an overtly minty character in a wine, but if that is the character of the wine due to the terroir - and many consumers and critics acknowledge and like that character - the critic should (in my opinion) report objectively.
Wine critics have an important role to play, but at the end of the day the consumer should make up his/her own mind. I have a peak cap that one of my winemaking colleagues - Bruce Jack of Flagstone - gave me some years ago. The cap has a great slogan written on the front "Trust your taste".
Jeremy Walker, Grangehurst Winery, Stellenbosch, South Africa
The only wine critics one should take seriously are those that taste wines they comment on blind. If you know what you are tasting before you put pen to paper you are more likely to be influenced on the comments you write - based on your perception of the label/ producer/supplier..
As for winemakers making wines to suit certain critics - of course they do - sure they have their own opinions - but the commercial reality is that if a certain critic gives your wine a high score - regardless if you as a winemaker would like to drink it or not - the wine will sell.
Nathan Foote
A couple of cents more from a small, boutique producer. In my experience, the wines that the critics/judges prefer out of my wines are rarely the ones that the punters would choose in a blind tasting. In one case, a wine that I entered into a Cowra Wine Show came absolute bang last in points, but it is by far the best repeat seller for me. Who is wrong here? I know who pays the bills. And I have no intention of skewing my wine to conform to general parameters of what a shiraz should or shouldn't be today. There's enough
homogeneity as it is. Mine isn't a jammy, peppery fruit bomb, nor do I intend it to be.
Of my wines, the one that has won the most medals currently sells the slowest. So for me the question is "What is the point of the critic?" Apart from a boost to the ego, and a bit of an initial sales boost, for me there really is no merit in submitting to critics.
If I advertise the brownie points and medals that my wines earn, I'm quite sure that my customers would end up buying wine from me on that basis, and probably not the wine that they would choose in a blind tasting. Ultimately, that's not terribly honest. I would argue that the only critics that I need be concerned about are the ones who buy my wine (preferably in case lots) and actually drink it. As such, I
haven't submitted my wines to critics or shows for a couple of years. Rather, I try to encourage open debate on the web.
GT, Australia
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker.
Way to go Jancis. Like the saying goes 'if you don't know how to cook, you teach; if you don't know how to teach, you criticize! CB, St Augustine, Florida
