Can tasting notes be too exact?
If you've been through several of my wine descriptions you've probably noted that though I'm a novice, my descriptions of the nose and flavor of a wine tend to be thorough and exact. (I try to pay attention to structure as well, but that aspect of wine is a bit more difficult to get a handle on, though you can be assured I'm working on it!)
Some wine experts say that this kind of description is counterproductive: interpretation of scents and flavors tends to be subjective, so it's best to just identify families of flavors (e.g. "citrus" or "berries"). According to this point of view, different people are going to come up with different descriptors within those ranges or families, so there is no point trying to nail it down more closely than that.
Still, how is one able to explore the intricacy that marks truly great wine that way? I recognize that this type of wine description has its place: certainly when writing descriptions for a mass market this is probably a good thing to keep in mind. Give the consumer a general feel for what to expect, but don't set them up for blackberries when they might taste black currants. This makes perfect sense.
When writing wine reviews for personal notes in an attempt to learn about wines or to track one person's perception of wines over time, general reviews are usually not the best approach. In this setting, a person is trying to stretch their appreciation of wine, so attempting to express completely the nuance of their sensual experience is more helpful.
The difference in the two review philosophies of tasting is related to the two separate scientific concepts of precision and accuracy in measurement. These concepts are not quite the same thing, though they go hand-in-hand.
Accuracy in measurement means getting a reading that is as close as possible to the real-world physical quality of the thing being measured.
Precision means something subtly different: the goal is to get measurements that are as repeatable as possible. A precise method of measuring something means that scientists from around the world can measure the same thing and get very similar results. It also means that the same person measuring the same thing will get the same result each time. Sometimes accuracy must be sacrificed in order to do this.
You can see why a reviewer who is writing for a wide audience will value precision over accuracy, and why personal wine notes would value accuracy over precision.
Here are two links about accuracy and precision. This link is a more general explanation, with a good visual representation of the different types of results from measurements that are accurate or precise. This link goes into more detail about the subject, with another good visual representation, though you will need to be familiar with some basic statistical concepts to understand it.
Some wine experts say that this kind of description is counterproductive: interpretation of scents and flavors tends to be subjective, so it's best to just identify families of flavors (e.g. "citrus" or "berries"). According to this point of view, different people are going to come up with different descriptors within those ranges or families, so there is no point trying to nail it down more closely than that.
Still, how is one able to explore the intricacy that marks truly great wine that way? I recognize that this type of wine description has its place: certainly when writing descriptions for a mass market this is probably a good thing to keep in mind. Give the consumer a general feel for what to expect, but don't set them up for blackberries when they might taste black currants. This makes perfect sense.
When writing wine reviews for personal notes in an attempt to learn about wines or to track one person's perception of wines over time, general reviews are usually not the best approach. In this setting, a person is trying to stretch their appreciation of wine, so attempting to express completely the nuance of their sensual experience is more helpful.
The difference in the two review philosophies of tasting is related to the two separate scientific concepts of precision and accuracy in measurement. These concepts are not quite the same thing, though they go hand-in-hand.
Accuracy in measurement means getting a reading that is as close as possible to the real-world physical quality of the thing being measured.
Precision means something subtly different: the goal is to get measurements that are as repeatable as possible. A precise method of measuring something means that scientists from around the world can measure the same thing and get very similar results. It also means that the same person measuring the same thing will get the same result each time. Sometimes accuracy must be sacrificed in order to do this.
You can see why a reviewer who is writing for a wide audience will value precision over accuracy, and why personal wine notes would value accuracy over precision.
Here are two links about accuracy and precision. This link is a more general explanation, with a good visual representation of the different types of results from measurements that are accurate or precise. This link goes into more detail about the subject, with another good visual representation, though you will need to be familiar with some basic statistical concepts to understand it.
2 Comments:
I'm all for being as specific as possible when you are making tasting notes, but I don't have any illusions that I'm being precise or accurate.
Notions of precision AND accuracy depend on objectively measurable phenomenon that are not generally subject to the biochemical interpretation and subsequent subjectivity that is involved with taste. We know that things like color and tone perception vary wildly from person to person, yet we have some basic objective standards for describing each of them (wavelength/frequency) that we can measure independent of a single person's perception. No such measure exists for taste, which is such a complex phenomenon that we're just starting to get a sense of how it works with the recent nobel prize winning work on aromas.
So I'm personally resigned to conveying, in as specific terms as possible my own experience with a wine, and hoping that it means someting to others at the end of the day. The only way for them to be sure, however, is to repeatedly take my recommendations and compare their own sensations to mine.
Good post !!
Alder
Vinography.Com
That's a great point Alder: Everyone's perceptions are different, so you've got to have an idea of what someone's taste is like in comparison to your own before their wine reviews are useful. This means that you've got to taste the same wines and read plenty of that person's notes. It also means that the wine reviewer has to have stable perceptions over time.
I've heard this is one reason why Robert Parker's wine reviews are so popular: he's exceptionally consistent in the way he interprets flavors, so it is easy for an audience to 'benchmark' their tastes to his.
Post a Comment
<< Home