fluff piece on biodynamic wines

Not that fluffy, I would say it is a good description of what is going on. Some of the winemakers who have embraced biodynamics are among the best in the world. The article rightly points out that, considering the abracadabra space cadet stuff that Joly expounds about, the real reason for the quality in these wines is more likely that here we have some particularly attentive and motivated winemakers using, above all else, common sense. The horns and the planetary influences may be bullshit, but respecting the environment and your consumers is just good sense. Too bad that the discipline needs all the silly superstructure.

I agree however with all that Joly says abot terroir.

I might add that, contrary to whaht is claimed at the end of the article, studies on biodynamics ARE being undertaken at the brand new University of Gastronomic Sciences at Pollenzo, the new university created by Slow Food. Next week a conference is being held, with the participation of the ever present Joly (is he ever in his vineyards? has he been entirely supplanted by the magnetic force of Neptune?), but also by the far more serious and rational Claude Bourguignon, who takes a much less fundamentalist approach to winemaking. Bourguignon accepts that there is no one path to making great terroir wine. If biodynamics is your thing, why not, but it is not the only way. And as usual, the proof is in the glass..............

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France email link

] On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:48:38 +0200, Emery Davis ] wrote: ] ] From the NYT as reprinted -- no signup required -- in the IHT: ] >

] >

] >Apparently a tasting of biodynamic wines in NY, wines well if skeptically received. ] ] Not that fluffy, I would say it is a good description of what is going ] on.

I meant fluff in the journalistic sense. No aspersions cast on the article itself.

] Some of the winemakers who have embraced biodynamics are among the ] best in the world. The article rightly points out that, considering ] the abracadabra space cadet stuff that Joly expounds about, the real ] reason for the quality in these wines is more likely that here we ] have some particularly attentive and motivated winemakers using, above ] all else, common sense. The horns and the planetary influences may be ] bullshit, but respecting the environment and your consumers is just ] good sense. Too bad that the discipline needs all the silly ] superstructure. ]

Sometimes I wonder if it's not part of human nature. The "superstructure", I mean. No question that the rigour of these methodologies lead to some very careful winemaking, though. I believe that "quality" is a personal issue -- I might like wines you don't -- so that it's difficult to generalize that biodynamics leads to "better" winemaking.

] I agree however with all that Joly says abot terroir. ]

As you know, I do to. I was particularly amused by the cosmetics comment. (Ducking Tom S' rhetorical water balloon here). But from reading your frequent comments on the terroir issue, I guess we feel pretty similarly about it.

] I might add that, contrary to whaht is claimed at the end of the ] article, studies on biodynamics ARE being undertaken at the brand new ] University of Gastronomic Sciences at Pollenzo, the new university ] created by Slow Food. Next week a conference is being held, with the

Interesting. What will you fellows think of next? :)

] participation of the ever present Joly (is he ever in his vineyards? ] has he been entirely supplanted by the magnetic force of Neptune?),

He appears to be among those enviable individuals of rare energy. I've not met him but am told he's quite accessible at the vineyard. Must make the visit someday, I am an admirer of his wines, if not his reputation as an ideologue.

] but also by the far more serious and rational Claude Bourguignon, who ] takes a much less fundamentalist approach to winemaking. Bourguignon ] accepts that there is no one path to making great terroir wine. If ] biodynamics is your thing, why not, but it is not the only way. And as ] usual, the proof is in the glass.............. ]

That seems more in keeping with my view, too. Can't place the name, what's the domain?

-E

That's the point I derived from the article. IOW, the real reason these wines are good is because they are well tended all along the way. I seriously doubt that the buried cow horns and all that airy-fairy crap have anything to do with the success of these vineyards. That's just window dressing - but it attracts journalists, which may be just the point.

Too late! **BLOOSH**! :^D

Actually, I thought that "Appellation Controlée de L'Oréal" was pretty funny.

Tom S

Well, I don't think that is the point. Anthroposophists (if that's the correct spelling) tend to be horrifyingly sincere. Plus, it's a lot of hoops to jump through for the publicity. My sense is that Joly and others believe what the practice (and preach). [My experience is based on Steinerite indoctrination grades K - 9th (US, that's until age 13 or so). I was then "moved on" for making out with my girlfriend on school grounds, considered improper behavior by the anthropops. Still, my experience with Steiner (Waldorf) schools was positive and I'd consider sending my kids to one if a good one was convenient. Apparently there's a lot of variation school to school.]

] > I was particularly amused by the cosmetics comment. ] > (Ducking Tom S' rhetorical water balloon here). ] ] Too late! **BLOOSH**! :^D ]

Argh, got me! ;)

] Actually, I thought that "Appellation Controlée de L'Oréal" was pretty ] funny. ]

Not meaning to imply that yours is any such wine -- like Mike I have yet to taste but would like to on one of your trips over -- but one can't deny such products exist. Lots of them...

-E