When I first heard about Matt Kramer’s recent speech that he gave at the 2013 New Zealand Pinot Noir Conference, I shook my head a bit. Since I have started reading blogs and eventually writing my own, it has become rather clear that the blogs that get the most ‘traction’ are those that create controversy. [Full disclosure: I realize entirely that by starting this Thursday Rant ‘Series’ I should be accused of following that model.] So when I read the title of the Kramer speech, I thought he was doing just that–provoking in the desire to stimulate ‘buzz’.

I first read about the speech on Alder Yarrow’s Vinography blog where Yarrow attempted to provide the transcript of the speech (Yarrow admitted that he did not consider his ‘transcription’ verbatim and that he paraphrased when necessary). I have noticed that in the case of most provocative/controversial blogs, the real juice is often in the comments that follow. Figuring that the Kramer speech was designed to stir the pot (nothing stirs the pot in the U.S. better than religion or guns), I skipped right to the bottom to see who was ticked off as well as their comments. There were plenty of fireworks down there, including from one of my favorite wine makers, Wes Hagen of Clos Pepe. After reading Wes’ comments (who does not hide his religious views) I decided that the bulk of Kramer’s speech must be provocative and I started to formulate a response of my own.

Being a Pinot freak, but not a wine maker, I wondered if atheists can not make great Pinot Noir (as Kramer suggested in the title of his speech), can only the pious appreciate the wine? I do not think I am an atheist, per se, but I am at least agnostic (how is that for straddling the fence?). I decided that I would be a little ticked off and be offended by Kramer’s suggestion if I read the whole speech, and I already have enough to make me ticked off.

After a bit of reflection, however, I decided to do a bit of a crazy thing—I changed my mind.

I read the entirety of the Vinography posting . After finishing the post, I realized that Kramer’s words were not pro-religion and certainly not anti-atheist, but rather he questioned his perception of an over-reliance on science in the making of New World (or more precisely non-Burgundy) Pinot Noir. His basic premise is that the winemakers in Burgundy, home to what many consider the finest Pinot on the planet, largely eschew ‘science’ in favor of tradition or ‘faith’. The winemakers feel no need to consider, for example, what might be the best Pinot clone or the ‘proper’ canopy technique as determined by ‘scientists’. Rather, they choose what ‘feels’ right or what has been proven over time through trial and error. Quite the romantic view of wine making–just the vigneron (the French term for those who tend to the vineyard and make the wine), the vines, and the elements.

There are a few holes in Kramer’s theory, however.

First, many have stated that Pinot Noir expresses ‘terroir’ more than any other variety.  If that is true (and I believe it is), why, or more precisely, how could non-Burgundians make a Burgundy? Even if they could, wouldn’t that be a bit boring? Simply put, California is not Burgundy. One region is sedate, reserved, and refined. The other tends to be bold, flashy, and outside the norm. Shouldn’t the wines reflect that? Can’t both styles have a seat at the table? To say that well made New World Pinots are lacking because they are not as ‘ethereal’ as Burgundy misses the entire point of the meaning of ‘terroir’. [Mini-Rant: I think the term ‘terroir’ is perhaps the most over used term by obnoxious oenophiles like me. It is pretentious and often misused, but you really can’t talk about Burgundy without using the term or you sound like a dullard.]

Second, there is a huge difference between taking over a Burgundian estate vs.starting a new winery in, say, California. New Burgundian wine makers generally have a ton of advantages over new ‘New World’ growers. First, the vast majority of Burgundy vintners grew up in the wine business, eventually inheriting their vineyards from their parents. The hard work, for the most part, had been done decades, even centuries ago. No need to decide what variety or even clones to plant, or even find  just the right place to plant them. Perhaps their biggest advantage is that the Burgundians already have a well established market with no shortage of buyers ready to buy their production at inflated (in my opinion) prices.

Contrast that with what most new Californian wineries face. Huge start-up costs–everything from purchasing the land, to clearing and planting, purchasing the wine making equipment (or paying to use a custom crush facility), the list goes on. There is no parent there telling you what to do (they might be telling you that you are crazy…) and certainly no centuries old history that will help to sell your wine simply because it has a certain appellation on the label. And all of this is happening on land where no one has ever grown any grapes, much less Pinot (generally accepted as one of the more difficult red wines to make well).

Kramer suggests that makers of Pinot should rely less on science and more on faith (or perhaps experimentation). Doing what he suggests in the real world would go no where without an important element that he excluded from his diatribe:

Money.

As a start-up winery, would you be willing to put your investment and future strictly in the hands of faith? Or would you look to hedge your bets a little with some adherence to science?

I have no idea what Matt Kramer’s salary is but I can be rather certain that it is considerably more than my own. Perhaps he should take some of his hard earned cash and use it to fund a winemaker that will implement what he proposes. It is very easy to tell others what to do when they are spending their own money doing it.