I picked this book up in the pre-Christmas self-gifting spree and, as I mentioned, am glad I did. I have followed Eric Asimov for sometime probably starting with some of his studies of beer styles that, at the time, were hailed as something of a break through for good beer. Not that I always agreed with him but following his writing has helped my appreciation of wine - especially his tackling of specific and perhaps under appreciated sorts of wine like sherry. In the book, a manifesto backed up by autobiography, he extends my appreciation by identifying themes and preferences all of which may be summed up in this brief passage at page 119:
I've become a firm adherent of the notice that wine is for drinking, not tasting. Only by drinking, swallowing, savoring, and returning to a wine, and repeating the process over time, can one really get a full and complete idea of what's in a bottle and what the wine is all about. A taste is fine if you believe that understanding a bottle consists of writing down impressions of aromas and flavors. It's like buying music over the Internet - if a fifteen-second snippet offered everything you needed to know, why pay for the whole song.
When was the last time you read beer writing like that. Focus on the complete idea of what's in the bottle? No reference to being a pal of the wine maker or how it fits into a structure of styles? A fluid first approach to appreciation. What is the proper route to thinking about good beer or any good stuff? Is there such a thing? I'd argue not. So, why limit examinations about approaches to appreciation to just beer? Here is what I am starting to think. If you love beer but don't explore wine, you have failed yourself. You have failed yourself in the same way that you would if you sought to learn about all good beer but didn't want to eat every vegetable in the produce section or turned your nose up at fish or blue cheese. If you don't know any wine writers by name, here is a start. But just a start.
More than that, how about taking on a small project of trying wines or spirits... or maybe nuts and cheeses as an adjunct to your interest in good beer. Or just a sort of wine. Since I have been trying various lower cost dry sparking wines like Spanish cava I have come to a point where I think of them a lot like the drier sorts of saison. I have also come to think of lightly sweeter wine like you find in a German spätlese is a good reference point to appreciate some of the implications of residual malt in a beer world a bit mad with hop acid. It's all the knowledge so why not? Is it any different from knowing about your local cheeses, meats, breads, or garden produce? Not to mention if you are this sort of foodie.
Wine v. beer? Why bother fighting when wine and beer offers a much broader, more interesting range of flavours. Me, I am going to focus on a few things but one will be the fact that I live very near a wine region that is taking off and that offers many more options than an hour and a half's drive for good beer does. See, as I mentioned last summer, my local beverage is in large part actually wine. And there's some pretty good stuff over there in Prince Edward County. Expect a few more posts on local wine in 2013. How about you? What is worth writing about in addition to good beer near you?






Comments
Pivní Filosof - January 19, 2013 4:44 AM
I've ranted about tastings (more than once), and I've even proposed a new model for beer tastings. All that said, I've come to the conclusion that they are nothing but very effective marketing tools that add nothing valuable to the culture of beer, quite the opposite, in fact.
But we'll have a chance to talk about this in more detail, I reckon
Gary Gillman - January 19, 2013 4:41 PM
Absolutely. Anything good invites comparisons, metaphors, especially two drinks such as beer and wine which have many similarities in production and social functionl. To deny the validity of this is to fall in the precincts of snobbism or reverse snobbism, IMO. Plus you enlarge your frame of reference. Champagne is bottled-conditioned for example, except the yeast is removed before final packaging. And so on.
Gary
Velky Al - January 20, 2013 8:27 AM
I can't remember exactly who said it, Evan perhaps, one night in PK - sounds about right, but apparently you can't really get a handle on a beer until you have had about 4 pints. While 'tasting' beer might allow you to pick out particular details of that particular batch of beer, surely it is only by drinking full pints over a few months that you can work out the most important thing about the liquid in your glass, whether you will drink more of it when the opportunity arises? One thing though that does bug my head, and I have seen far too many examples of this to think it rare, is the number of people who take a 2oz sample of a beer and then write a 'review' on certain websites advocating the rating of beer. You simply cannot review a drink on the basis of 2oz.