What’s More Important Than Terroir?
Posted on | February 10, 2010 | Written by Tom Powers | 4 Comments
For years, the concept of terroir has been heralded as the most important component in determining the quality of a wine. A word that encompasses a broad territory, “terroir” is not merely the soil in which the wine is grown, but also the drainage of that soil, the direction the vineyard faces, the microclimate where the grapes grow, and even natural elements like surrounding flora and fauna. These various and sundry factors will influence the quality of the fruit that’s growing on the vine. Moreover, an individual vineyard’s idiosyncratic terroir helps to explain how the same winemaker using the same technique in different plots can make wines of differing quality. This umbrella concept of “terroir” began in Bordeaux to help explain the extraordinary nature of the region’s wines, and because Bordeaux has long been the best-travelled and most famous wine-producing region, this notion soon gained acceptance around the world. However, I am not sure that terroir is the single most important component in determining a wine today.
There are a few reasons why I’d make that startling claim. For one thing, many parts of the world are showing a modern style of winemaking that is creating a certain homogenization of wine. Wines are cleaner, more consistent and, to a certain extent, remarkably similar. These wines have maximum ripeness and thus high alcohol, a generous amount of oak and a rich texture. Many wine aficionados would argue that wines have been “Parkerized.”
However, I must ask a question: can we say that the influence of Robert Parker is so great that he has caused people around the world to change the way they are making wine today? While I would suggest that Parker’s influence is considerable, I do believe this is an easy answer to a far more complex situation. In response to “Parkerization,” I have to raise the visage of the wine consultant, like Michel Rolland, who is the most successful consultant in this profession. Wine consultants suggest ways that producers can tweak their wines in order to make them more recognizable, marketable and profitable. Certainly the role of the wine consultant has played an enormous role in shaping the manner in which producers around the world make their wines.
Germane to the question of terrior is the criticism that these international-style wines are void of terroir. It would seem as though these international wine consultants are able to produce their 90+ rated wines without sensitivity for the land. If the terroir were the most important component in shaping the wine, it would not play a secondary role or be eliminated from the final expression, and wines that seem like they could have hailed from anywhere—as opposed to clearly Toscana, clearly Brda, clearly Burgundy, or clearly Sonoma—would get far lower scores. They also wouldn’t sell as well.
To take the argument one step further, Burgundy is an area where terroir is cherished. The terroir is evident in each bottle. However, in one grand cru vineyard there may be as many as 60 different producers. While the location of the vines in the producers’ vineyards will have an impact on the overall quality, it is the vinification technique of the winemaker that will ultimately shape how the wine tastes. And it’s on that point, the point of the producer, where we get to the heart of the matter. While the terroir plays a critical role is determining the raw material that the winemaker works with, the winemaker makes the ultimate statement.
Perhaps the best illustration for the importance of the producer’s hand would be Josko Gravner. In the genesis of his winemaking career, he was known as the leader of the modern movement, using technology to shape the manner in which his wine was produced. Then he did a 180 and began to embrace a totally opposite, ancient technique using clay amphorae to make his spectacular wines. In both cases, his wines were true to the region in which they were produced, but the technique was completely different. The resulting wines were also very different.
While terroir is a critical component in shaping the overall quality of a wine, it will only determine the parameters of what a wine can be. Ultimately, the person making the wine will determine the final product. There are winemakers who are more gifted than others. There are people who have a passion, a conviction that allows them to take extraordinary raw material and give it a wine apotheosis. This is the artistry of the process. This is where a talent combines with material to create something extraordinary. More importantly, I would argue that wine is ineffably complex: there are so many unique components that will influence the overall quality of the wine that it is more important to learn to appreciate the wine for its individuality rather than to predetermine what made it special.
Comments
4 Responses to “What’s More Important Than Terroir?”
Leave a Reply
Follow Us Online
Dogeared
Biodynamic Wine
Bold Italian
Educating Peter
Passion on the Vine
The Heartbreak Grape
The Wine Atlas of the Langhe
February 10th, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
Great summation and the last sentence says it all for me.
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:49 am
I agree with you, I find it interesting that we want to point to one thing. We like to compartmentalize our explanations. It’s X that makes a great wine, or it’s Y. Why is it so hard to accept that it might be X, Y, and Z working simultaneously? I think terroir is analogous to genetic makeup (“nature”); as you point out it’s the “raw materials”. The role of the winemaker is analogous to the experience we have as humans living life (“nurture”). We are the people we are based on the collision of nature and nurture; why is it so hard to accept that wines are what they are because of the simultaneity of terroir and winemaking style?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:42 am
Thank you Nicola for your keen observation. I would add that there is even a third critical component to the process. It is the emotion, the faith, the prayers, the very energy that goes into making the wine. There is certainly a very spiritual side to winemaking. While science and experience can dictate the final product on a more tangible level, there is something special, sometimes magical that occurs in the process.
February 12th, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
Tom, no doubt that it’s true, and it’s an interesting point. I’ll have to think about that a bit more. I have trouble separating the energy & spirituality from the contributions of the winemaker, him or herself. Perhaps I’m being too logical about this, but I see these magical components as being transmitted through to the final wine product via the winemaker.