May 6 2009
I don’t particularly enjoy talking about Robert Parker or discussing the relative merits of the 100-point scoring system, mostly because nobody has had an original thought on him, his influence or the 100-point scoring system for the last 15 years.
I am no different. I don’t have anything to add that is profound, revelatory or enlightening.
And, that’s precisely why Parker is so important.
He is unassailable.
He is the rock of Gibraltar that cannot be chipped away, despite documentaries and barrels of ink against his influence and palate.
And, even when you do confront him, with journalistic intent, as writer Tyler Colman did two weeks ago, he responds with a red herring that distracts from the issue.
Wine bloggers were so lathered up talking about his message board post calling us “blobbers” and besmirching the Wine Blogger Conference, bloggers as the proverbial kids at the secondary Thanksgiving table, that we all forgot to check back and see what the net result was of Colman’s inquiry and Parker’s audit “with consequences” on the Jay Miller Argentinean junket.
Meanwhile, Colman was undoubtedly trying to put that lid back on the can of worms as quickly as possible, thankful for the red herring, preserving his own sanctity.
As far as I can tell, Parker artfully snuck his way out of a closed loop on the “Big Jay” imbroglio.
Yet, you sense that the duality of a sustained economic downturn affecting the high-end of wine coupled with the youth movement in wine consumption is going to put his reputational influence on the wane.
Perhaps the man, the Emperor of Wine, is on the wane. However, what is not on the wane is the use of the 100-pt scale.
Regardless of whether Parker retires in five years, or continues on years into the future in order to have a prodigiously long career akin to Michael Broadbent, what seems empirically clear to me is that the 100-point scale will be his legacy, and just as people come in and out of our collective consciousness, what doesn’t leave is their influence.
The Beatles haven’t released an album since 1970. Sinatra hit his apex in the early 1960’s. Perhaps it is hyperbole to compare Parker’s 100-pt. scale to The Beatles, but you get the point.
More importantly, music is getting the point(s).
Paste Magazine is an indie music magazine, and a good one. They focus on that sweet spot of music that is just above ground and quality-oriented, but below the collective consciousness.
They focus on the type of music that is very similar in number of fans and awareness, by analogy, as the 1000’s of boutique wine producers in the U.S. and elsewhere.
And, here’s the funny thing. As of September of ’08, they use a 100-pt rating scale for record reviews.
I caught up with Kate Kiefer, the reviews editor at Paste, for her comment on Paste’ use of the 100-pt. scale.
Question: When did you implement the 100 pt. scoring and what was the thought process behind doing so?
Kate: We started using the 100-point rating scale last September (Issue 46). We felt limited by our five-star scale—there were way too many three and four star ratings. Three stars didn’t really mean anything anymore. We like the nuance our new scale provides.
Question: Any thought to an empirical measurement of what many consider to be “art?”
Kate: Applying a qualitative number to a work of art is certainly an odd concept, but ratings provide context, and it’s nice to be able to glance at a score quickly. I’d encourage our readers to put more stock in the review itself than its rating though.
Question: What is the ranking criteria for the 100 point scale?
Kate: Here’s our scale: 0-25 regrettable, 26-49 forgettable, 50-74 respectable, 75-90 commendable, 91-100 phenomenal. Because everyone’s used to school-style grading, a reader might see a score of 70 and think it’s not very good, when it’s actually a good score—falling on the high end of “respectable.” Since our scale is relatively new, I think that readers will get used to the fact that a 60 is not a failing grade. We use 90 and above very sparingly.
It’s an interesting perspective on a review system borrowed from the wine world.
Music, art and wine can all be considered within the same subjective realm of evaluation, yet Paste views it as a tool that provides “context” and “nuance,” suggesting that readers look at it holistically with the review. And, it should be noted that they haven’t bastardized the scale to 80 +, deeming good work in the 50 – 74 range.
Regardless of whether wine enthusiasts love or loathe Parker, think his influence is diminishing or will continue, love his palate or hate it, one thing is clear, the 100-pt system is so well entrenched, and so influential that his legacy will undoubtedly be as the catalyst for the 100-pt system, regardless of where he ends up in the book of history.
It may make sense for wine enthusiasts to battle for a more normalized 100-pt system then the abolition of it. That seems like one area in which the Rock of Gibraltar that can be chipped away, red herrings or not.
Posted in, The Week in Wine. Permalink | Comments (3) |
“Normalized 100 point scale.”
Well, the solution to that would be in the criteria used to award individual points and not in what 75-90 points means….
Unfortunately, nobody is willing to establish these criteria because most critics out there can’t divorce their personal preference from the process of wine assessment - that is assuming they have the sensory chops to carry out the task in the first place.
I think Paste magazine’s attempt is a fresh take on the 100 pt scale, but it’s important all their readers are well-aware of the scaling system. Anyone attached to the traditional understanding of the 100 pt scale may find themselves confused.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License
Design by The Blog Studio
Print
It will be interesting to see if the Paste scale is resistant to inflation. Once upon a time 80 pts in a wine mag was not poisonous. Nowadays, 80-84 in WineSpec rubric still indicates “solid, well-made” but of course nobody treats those scores that way.
As for Parker, coupla points:
1) THe Dr. Jay imbroglio is hardly over; comment ust today at http://drvino.com by a Chilean producer asserting shadiness of Dr. Jay on a trip there. Small producers were shut out of opportunity to have wines tasted.
2) I agree that the 100-pt scale will be his legacy, but before long it will become apparent that his reticence to defend his particular use of it (namely always blind, and insisting on reuse of numbers being clearly referenced to Wine Advocate issue origins) will tarnish. With so many copycats now, his numbers are just numbers, and nobody except his shrinking choir cares.
3) The other sad spinoff of 100pt scale is how others have turned what is essentially an editorial device into a pure marketing device. How else to explain the existence of justwinepoints.com, where no reviews are given AND wineries/marketers are encouraged to PAY for label images and links to their websites.