I had to look up the word inane as soon as I read Matt Kramer’s editorial in the June 15, 2014 Wine Spectator, because that is the first word to come to my mind. I know it’s just his opinion, and he is rightfully entitled to it just as I am to mine. However, when it lacks substance or sense, it deserves a reasonable response. Kind of like listening to someone defend Hitler’s acts during the war…Wouldn’t you feel impelled to respond?
The title of the article is “Why “Amateur” Matters.” The gist of the article is that there is now too much emphasis put on credentials in the wine world. I am assuming he is excluding himself, since at the end of his article there is a footnote letting readers know how long he has contributed to the Wine Spectator. He leaves a loop-hole for himself indicating that perhaps he is still a talented amateur that is not a credential seeker. I think it is easy for him to make those statements since most of us don’t know him personally, so we have to take him on his word. All that aside, the word inane came to me after he made this statement.
“Did you see the movie Somm? The only thing those guys mastered was flash cards filled with wine trivia. Where was the wine love? Nowhere.” Are you kidding me? The pure dedication the guys (as Kramer calls them) have for wine is immeasurable. Why would they spend so much time studying the subject unless they cared. There was a scene where all of them are drinking wine (no doubt because they love it) and I believe they are slightly buzzed. There is some bantering back and forth, and it is a fun scene that tells the audience that these “guys” and girls are into wine, not flash cards. Now, the question is… Did Matt Kramer get inspired to write his editorial based on the documentary Somm? And, did Matt Kramer have some sort of problem with one of the individuals in the film? At this time, I cannot give an answer to either question. However, it seems obvious to me that he has a problem with the titles “Master of Wine” or “Master Sommelier”.
Would anyone go through all the trouble of attaining either of those credentials unless they had a passion for wine? Does Matt Kramer write for the Wine Spectator for money, fame or because he loves wine? Only he can answer that, not me or anyone else. I am going to give Matt the benefit of the doubt and say that he loves wine. I will also say that you have to be insane if, after watching Somm you don’t believe that every individual in that piece loves wine and everything it involves.
Credentials are not the end itself, but a means to the end. They are a bookmark to our progress, and they let people around us know that yes, we are serious about the subject, whatever it may be, in this case our passion for wine. Master Sommeliers or Masters of Wine are not in it for the credential, I believe they are in it because they love the world of wine, and want to prove that to themselves and the world around them.
This is conjecture, but I believe three things could have happened to Matt that inspired him to write his editorial. He could have failed a test that involved a desired credential. He may have tried to interview one of the subjects of the film “Somm” and they refused, or he watched Somm and it gave him the inspiration to write this article. Whatever the case, I think his article is bullS^$t. He is implying that talented amateurs trump veterans of wine. That is crazy talk on any level.
Veterans, whether they have official credentials or not, deserve the utmost respect. Robert Parker Jr. Jancis Robinson, Eric Asimov, James Laube, Antonio Galloni, James Suckling, Steve Heimoff and Kramer himself are all veterans. They are not talented amateurs. I am not sure if they are all talented, but the aforementioned individuals are veterans. And, I am not sure that even though they all love wine, that they would dedicate their efforts to attaining the credentials required to give them the title of “Master of Wine” or “Master Sommelier.”
Matt needs to stick to things he knows, not inane statements.
Cheers!
Stan The Wine Man
