9/7/09
Terroir. Hmmm. My thoughts on it are violent and change as rapidly as the weather on Stradbroke Island. Personally, I can’t help but think it’s all a continuum, but I think I’m pretty lonely in that thought. Two things piss me off about people talking about terroir.
One, they often try to own the term (perhaps they should try and copyright it?). For militant terroirists, there is only one valid viewpoint- theirs. The winemaker at Bindi was guilty of this in a recent Gourmet Traveller Wine magazine. The French have been guilty of it for a long time and still are.
James Hook handles the matter quite sensibly and methodically on his Wine Fight Club Blog-
http://www.lazyballerina.com/Winefightclub/winefightclubJul07.pdf
“Terroir is common sense really. Soil + Climate = grapes which gets turned into wine”
Very nice. So, my POV-
Soil can be measured as one square foot or less to a whole country (maybe a whole planet if Mars starts making wine). Thus, continuum.
To make things even more problematic though, and this is often what I try to do, terroir faces some other issues. Huon Hooke recently took Langhorne Creek to task for a perceived inability to produce great wines with regularity as the mint characters of the region (terroir) often overwhelmed the other flavours, lessening complexity. Campbell Mattinson has often confessed to being very sensitive to mint too, and has written along the same lines as Mr Hooke about it. The problem comes into relief in two ways here.
1. If we truly want terroir to be expressed, shouldn’t we accept whatever a region offers up, even if it is too much mint. I would argue Yes. But that doesn’t mean that we have to think the terroir of that region makes for great wine. I am yet to plant vines in the backyard of my Chapel Hill flat in Qld. I doubt the soil or climate would produce much of worth. Maybe a Chambourcin to rival the one I tasted recently at the Brisbane Wine Festival?
2. And this one is harder to resolve- mint characters can come from Eucalyptus Trees, amongst other things (from oak too apparently, although I don’t know much about that). Is it fair to decrease/remove Eucalypts from a region to “create” better terroir? Is man allowed to alter nature when it comes to terroir? Doesn’t man/woman alter things anyway, just by being there?
And Huon Hooke also mentions a court case involving Mount Mary’s vineyards in the Yarra Valley and a proposed planting of Eucalypts on one of its borders. I reckon whoever was there first may have right of way? Not sure, but it’s probably gonna effect terroir.
So, to summarise this, what role does flora play in terroir?
And now, because I often think in strange ways. The space time continuum- what roles does vintage play in terroir if time is related to space? No idea. Perhaps I’m being silly. I honestly don’t know and am still seeking other’s thoughts on the matter. But if part of the equation is climate, and climatic conditions change with each vintage, doesn’t this question deserve to be asked?
So let’s end this exploration on a playful note with the second thing that troubles me about terroir. Essentialising it. I like the notion of terroir, regionality, sub-regionality, multi-regional blending. I like to drink a “place” or several places blended with thought and intent. But I think it would be difficult to characterise me as belonging to the militant terroirist camp.
In a conversation on differences of opinion about how oak regimes effect expression of terroir, my girlfriend laughed and produced the wonderful line- “Won’t someone please let the grapes speak!”. I will have this made into a t-shirt I think.
So, with all the emphasis being rightly or wrongly (or are such judgements really valid?) on minimal intervention these days, I sometimes feel that wine maker input is being stigmatised. And as I thought about this, I dreamt of a pataphysical wine, “A Wine from Nowhere”-
This wine would come from brilliant and sturdy grapes, preferably different varietals, but to help engender absurdity, from one block of vines. The grapes would then receive excessive battonage, specific selected yeasts, lots of oak and 100% malo + all the other wine maker tricks you could throw at it. It would taste delicious. It would taste of nothing but itself. It would not taste of a place or even of variety, but the taste it produced would be utterly delicious. It would be a Wine From Nowhere, and it would make people think even harder about terroir than wines that spoke of a place.
Edit: This post was intended to provoke thought. If it interests/angers you, please look at the comments below. I am given the opportunity to state my opinion of how terroir/place “needs” to be addressed in order for the Australian Wine Industry to move forward.
2nd Edit: The conversation contained within the comments of this post has prompted me to provide a link to a great piece of writing by Brian Croser over at Langton’s. Once again, if you do find this post of interest I really hope you will have a look at the comments, the link to Croser’s pinot noir manifesto and share any thoughts you may have.
PINOSOPHY- Brian Croser’s Pinot Noir Manifesto- http://www.langtons.com.au/Magazine/Features.aspx?MagazineId=206
3rd Edit (20/7/09)- more research on the net this morning turned up another interesting piece by Croser, more directly analysing the concepts of quality & terroir and the way forward for the Australian wine industry. More food for thought- just click on the heading “A Wine From Nowhere” for now. I will continue to teach myself html and this platform, and edit this again once I know what I’m doing. Arghh! Cheers j
Nice post!
The quality angle is what I find most problematic. There's no doubt a Burgundian concept of terroir has enormous (potential) appeal on just that level — the conceptual. And that fine as far as it goes, but I've never bought into the idea that art's value rests purely in its intellectual conception, and ditto with wine. Execution matters. Terroir is an interesting idea, but how does this translate to notions of quality? Are the two causally related or, as you suggest, is terroir simply something that exists, almost neutrally, and that intersects with quality on some level? And, further, is a sense of place even a prerequisite for quality wine? Australian wine lovers might answer this more passionately in the negative than most, considering our traditions of blending across regions to produce our renowned wines.
The whole thing is really interesting.
Thanks Julian.
I do find myself coming back to the whole thing on so many different levels, and I wonder if there is any real answer to any of these questions. It's feels almost like the postmodern peeling of the layers of an onion. If you could reach the end, there wouldn't be anything there anyway.
The aim of the post was to stimulate and your questions of causallity and quality, whilst I I have no answers, seem to me to stimulate the debate even further.
I would tend to agree that Australian wine lovers would be less inclined to argue that place was as important as, say, French wine lovers. I guess this now leads outside of my theoretical ditty and back into the practical realm of where the Australian wine industry now sits (precariously).
It does seem to me that from a purely financial (and selfish) point of view, we may have to emphasise place/regionality in Australian wine, particularly overseas. And seeing as I too am attracted to more Burgundian concepts of terroir, this won't make anything "less enjoyable" for me.
And, I suppose, if the Australian wine industry cannot sustain itself, then a lot of my theoretical musings will lose the object of their attention anyway. So I reckon, having posted this as food for thought, onwards and upwards with promoting blocks, single vineyards, sub-regions, regions and intelligent multi-regional blending.
Jeremy
A lot of what you have to say is pretty much the thoughts of many on the topic. Using "terroir" as a badge for quality for the more pretentious is really just a snow job on the general public (and those that should know better). Wine reviewers and writers love ramblings on "terroir" as it implies the winery has "passion" and a "deep understanding" and all those terms that make one wonder if a marketing executive isn't typing out hand-outs.
From the perspective of someone who makes wine from one point in your continuum, I find the term "terroir" useful in describing the uniqueness of our wine – BUT – it can't be used as a definition of quality. Only the wine drinking public can assign that. If your wine is considered of a high quality, comes from a point source, has a distinctive taste that can be seen through vintages, and gives opportunity for the grape varieties to be heard in the glass – then and only then good your site be considered unique and having a "terroir" that the wine public could hook on to.
It is a term that fascinates me and befuddles me. I understand the french and other europeans love of the term as there is something mystical they like to add to their wines via there heritage and desire to self promote. With us, it merely represents how we relate to our site and our wine – we can't claim heritage and historical review, but we can claim where we are and what we do.
There is no right or wrong – there is simply opinion.
Cheers
Thank you Mark
It's great to hear thoughts on the matter from a wine maker's perspective.
I wouldn't have thought my continuum model would be along the same line as many, but it's very interesting (& somewhat comforting) to hear. Even more so if you have a look at what James Halliday has just written on the matter in today's Weekend Australian (11/7/09).
A quick précis, as there is no link on the net currently- JH is writing about Single Vineyards and the Australian relationship with terroir, which he describes as "uneasy", of a much larger scale than the French, and focusing more on climate than soil.
He goes on to talk about Brian Croser's attempts to address the issue of scale, and the merging of soil and climate under the terminology of "distinguished sites". Then he moves to Henschke as an example of the ultimate conclusion of terroir/distinguished site, referencing a 2.6 hectare block of chardonnay in their Adelaide Hills Croft Vineyard. The middle section of rows are chosen as the sub-section of a vineyard which produce the best grapes- "a vineyard within a vineyard within a vineyard", which is sort of what I was alluding to by my reference to the post modern onion- where does the ultimate conclusion of terroir really lie?
As you have pointed out, there is no right or wrong, just opinions. And as you would already know, I like opinions. The quality side you are referring to (and Julian as well), has probably been dealt with most effectively by Croser's "distinguished site" theory, in my opinion. I also love what you've written about it here, the final two paragraphs seem bang on to me.
I will post a link in the blog to Croser's thoughts on Langton's. It's a ripping peice which seeks to dissolve the conflict between "hedonic" qualities, winemaker imput & terroir, as well as addressing other things. Campbell Mattinson has also intelligently discussed the associated problematic of varietal labelling (Aus) vs regional labelling (France et al) on "The Wine Front" (subscribers only, and of course, we should all subscribe to GW and CM's site. It's where I found your wines!) I like what I perceive to be Croser's germination of the possibility of dissolving the opposing arguments of each within his manifesto on pinot. My brother coined the term "varietal expression of terroir" when we were discussing the whole debate, and I think it is a great term.
Ok, sorry to run on about it and thank you for posting your thoughts here. They are very helpful and much appreciated.
Cheers
j