Matt Kramer on New World Pinot

http://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2013/01/atheists-cant-make-great-pinot-kramer

surprised that this article hasn’t caught on fire yet…

I get it Matt. We all know that Burgundy rules, but this is mostly a bunch of rubbish.

I have to say that I largely agree with Matt…
the only producer outside of burgundy that I think comes close to the 2 plus 2 equalling 5 analogy is Kevin Harvey and Rhys…

“Kramer alerted his audience to the “stunning uniformity and homogeneity” of pinot noir wines being produced these days.”

It’s hard to take anyone seriously who makes that kind of statement. If you can’t find a tremendous spectrum of variety of pinot noir these days (even just in the New World), you’re just ignorant or lazy.

Now, if he were to say that the world of pinot noir would get more interesting if there were more diversity of clones, sites, styles, etc., then I think almost anyone would agree.

How many clones are planted in a DRC vineyard?

I don’t really enjoy his writing, lately seems like he’s on a pulpit or intentionally trying to be controversial.

Like so many, in so many forms of media, he seems in search of attention these days thru soundbites or highlights. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?

It’s a bunch of rubbish, I agree. We’re having a good laugh about it up here in Oregon.

So much of it comes back to that point these days. Whether it’s cable news, sports talk, cable sports talking heads, newspaper writers, or people posting on message boards, so many take the shortcut of being deliberately extreme, controversial, strident, etc., knowing that it will generate a lot of response and heat (both positive and negative), often despite little or no substance. Whereas thoughtful, nuanced, balanced types of presentations would require far more effort and skill, and are likely to get overlooked or ignored.

Our board is far better than most in that regard, but it’s still an issue. And I think we all (myself included) need to watch for it creeping in subconsciously, as well, that impulse to make extreme statements or express ourselves with hyperbole or exaggeration, because we want to get a reaction and to get attention.

About a year ago, we drank a Kramer pinot noir when we were in Portland. http://www.kramerwine.com/
The thread title sort of reminded me of this tasty wine.

I don’t get his point here. First let me say I like his WS articles, and usually read them. Second let me say that Burgundy makes epic Pinot Noir…all praise…no criticism here on those topics.

But, to this point “stunning uniformity and homogeneity” of Pinot Noir wines being produced these days." - does he really think Arcadian, Rhys, Kutch, Copain, are like Rivers-Marie, Rochioli, Holdredge, are like Loring, Kosta Browne, are like Domaine Drouhin, or countless other Oregon producers?

Not much uniformity between those groups. Maybe some uniformity within those groups, but that is a lot of style variation, and I get enjoyment out of each group depending on my needs of that day.

Allen Meadows made a similar argument a couple years back, but with a much more academic answer that had good support to it. He pointed to the average vine age in California and the fact that Pinot vines will mutate for up to 25 years once planted. I spent a lot of time seeking out California Pinot with vines older than 25 years, and found that most were so much more to my taste, and were a lot more interesting than Pinot made from younger vines. But that’s me and my taste.

by Scott Butler » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:47 am
I don’t get his point here. First let me say I like his WS articles, and usually read them. Second let me say that Burgundy makes epic Pinot Noir…all praise…no criticism here on those topics.

But, to this point “stunning uniformity and homogeneity” of Pinot Noir wines being produced these days." - does he really think Arcadian, Rhys, Kutch, Copain, are like Rivers-Marie, Rochioli, Holdredge, are like Loring, Kosta Browne, are like Domaine Drouhin, or countless other Oregon producers?

Not much uniformity between those groups. Maybe some uniformity within those groups, but that is a lot of style variation, and I get enjoyment out of each group depending on my needs of that day.

+1

Chris, you’re referring to the Parkerization of Kramer.

I agree with him that Burgundy “has something that no other region has achieved.” Namely, they churn out loads of overpriced mediocre wine with prices inflated by their ritzy address, and use the great wines (of which there are many, for sure) to justify it. That sort of act would get Cali, Oregon, or anywhere else laughed out of the building. In other words, their crappy wines get graded on a curve that no other region enjoys.

Thanks for posting Ryan! But I would to an extent have to agree with Mr. Kramer and the over reliance of Dijon clones in US pinot production. I think we are on the verge of starting to plant more vineyards using Massal Selection but we are not quite there yet. I also agree on the point of having a cross section of vines that have some over ripe and under ripe fruit but the majority are in the middle. I think that brings a wine in balance or my perception of balance.

A few years ago Alan Meadows had the same type of discussion on Dijon clones. I think it was in issue 32 but I’m not sure.

See my post above, and I’m pretty sure it’s #36.

I was just guessing.

As Chris said, “It’s hard to take anyone seriously who makes that kind of statement. If you can’t find a tremendous spectrum of variety of pinot noir these days (even just in the New World), you’re just ignorant or lazy.”

Being a musician, I get what he is saying about the overabundance of a limited number of clones and his orchestral analogy. But it has limited legs. If every rock drummer was limited to only one snare, bass, hi-hat and ride cymbal sound, you wouldn’t be able to identify the drummer by sound colors. But you sure would be able to tell the difference between John Bonham, Keith Moon, Neal Peart, Buddy Rich or Questlove using a multitude of other factors.

At least there is a wide acknowledgement of different clones used in pinot noir. But why? Why not the same emphasis on clonal variation with Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay or Zinfandel? From my perspective, it seems like who manages the vineyard for Cabs, the oaking regimen for Chards, and vine age for zins are much bigger discussion topics and therefore are perceived as more important.

I consume a lot of pinot. While there are some producers I feel lean toward producing a “house style” where the differences between wines is minor, producers like Zepaltas, Matello, Siduri, Cristom and others offer distinct wines that are obvious in their differences when you taste them.

To my palate, TRB’s Rivers Marie pinots show more range of difference than his cabernets. There is way more homogeneity in Napa Cabs than New World pinots.

By his logic, the wackjobs at the Westboro Baptist Church would make a killer pinot …

Monte

He might use broad generalizations and exaggeration to make his point (what else is new?), but the message he is trying to convey, which I view to be more of a challenge to producers, is at least rooted in fact. So many pinot vineyards planted in the last 10 to 20 years are based largely on 115, 667, and 777. This lack of diversity surely diminishes some of the subtle nuances that climate and/or soil would reveal, no? Yes, not ALL New World pinot is merely a sum of its parts (and Kramer being the guy who “discovered” Rhys - a well-documented practitioner of massale - you know he knows that.)

P.S. Monte, you left off Danny Carey.

Wouldn’t using the same clones everywhere make terroir more apparent since you are removing a variable that would effect taste?

This lack of diversity surely diminishes some of the subtle nuances that a difference in climate and/or soil would reveal, no?

I tend to think like the scientist/atheist/rationalist that Kramer decries in his speech. If you really want to emphasize subtle differences in climate and/or soil you’d want to use the exact same clone, or mix of clones in each site. Isolate as many variables as possible. The art of making wine involves a mind boggling number of variables, some of which can be controlled, and some that can’t.

But Kramer says that ‘vineyards should contain at least 20 to 40 different clones interspersed randomly, “like a field of wild flowers,” to create heterogeneity…"’ That seems like a terrible idea. Utilizing more clones is probably a really good idea. But leaving everything else to chance? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. It would be like taking the color palette out of Picasso’s hands or playing a Beethoven symphony with an orchestra made of random instruments. The string section might be perfect, but what if you end up with a kazoo?