+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: GENERAL (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-100.html)
+--- Forum: Rants & Raves (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Acid With Acid (/thread-13626.html)
- Innkeeper - 05-04-2002
This subject has been kicked around here from time to time. Back in college (so long ago that it was tough and students had no rights) we used to enjoy going to the local spaghetti joint and enjoying Chianti in one of those grass skirted bottles with the ghetti. It stuck in my then young mind that the wine really went well with the food. Much better than the wines I had had at home during those special dinners I was allowed to sip wine at.
Flash forward almost forty years ahead, and I first signed on to this board in November '99. At that time Randy C. gave long and technical advice on a wide range of wine related subjects, including the idea that you should match wines with characteristics similar to the foods one is eating. Light with light, sweet with sweet, and acid with acid. Then Randy went away for awhile.
So, I took up and banner, and practiced what I preached enjoying pinots, barberas, and sangioveses with acidic food. After a year or so the likes of Foodie, Barnesy (both normally nice guys) and others started to pommel me about the neck and thighs with this crazy acid with acid idea. The argument went that this would just make the whole meal more acidic which was not good.
So, I started drinking things like Salice Salentino and other low acid wines with my acidic, mostly Italian, dishes. I found that the wines were nice, but really matched better with non or low acidic dishes. For a long time, I stopped my advice about acid with acid, buy quietly kept eating that way myself. Then Randy came back for awhile and I brought the subject back up again. Foodie practically had apoplexy.
Then just this week our friend Dan Berger had a column in his newsletter on structure. He makes the case that wines without structure as best drunk without food, and that those with structure should be drunk with food, and not without. Then he wrote the following: "Some time in the late 1970s I realized that Chianti tasted alone was nondescript and tart, but was transformed into an enchanting dinner companion once the pasta was served. The reason: the acid in the wine balanced with the acid in the dish."
Why is it that people who know lots and lots about wine are poles apart on this subject?
- Bucko - 05-04-2002
Two words -- personal preference.
Now to confuse the subject, what about folks like me who prefer both sides? I like acid with acid, as examples given. I also like Sancerre with non-acidic chicken dishes and seafood dishes.
Personal preference, there is NO gold standard here IMHO.
- hotwine - 05-04-2002
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "personal preference" that Bucko describes is really driven by differences in individuals' body chemistry. For exampble, I have a tolerance for hot sauces that send others high-tailin' it for the nearest water trough. Suspect that even slight variations in body chemistry could have noticeable affects on taste sensation from one person to another. Also suspect the same sort of thing applies to differences between men and women in their perceptions of taste - females have got all those magic potions coursin' through their bods, making their sense of taste infinitely variable (and unpredictable).
Gil-the-nickle-philospher, duckin' the females' spears.....
- zenda2 - 05-04-2002
Hot spices, city water vs. well water, chemistry, hormones, allergies, etc... a lot of variables can affect our tastes & prefs. Let's just say there's room around here for chianti and tomato sauced pasta fans (We gotta stick together, IK, I promise I'll help next time they're piling on ya) and those esteemed Salice Salentino & pasta fans from the opposition as well.
After a year or so around here, I've found that I know which ones of youse guys my taste buds (& budget) agrees with on most of the different types of wine. Not that 'A' is any 'better' than B...but that 'A' and I like the same kind of Rhones, or the same kind of Zin and so on. Yet I may agree with 'B' on Riesling, day in and day out. If 'B' says a $10 Riesling is good, I'll go looking for it, no questions asked...and after all, 'A' probably just doesn't care about SW's anyways. 8^)
- winoweenie - 05-04-2002
The beautiful part of wine is the fact that very few of the experts can agree on anything. The most tangible aspect of tasting is the intangibles the buds from peoples to peoples encounter. I never discount a posting from anyone as it reflects the honest opinion of the poster. I still buy 3.99 Chianti when I'm having more than CB and meeself for pasta with my world-famous-always -a-killer marinara sauce. I personally prefer a Zin with some age on it but the classic pairing is a zinger. You be rite on there IK, ole bean! WW
- mrdutton - 05-04-2002
I like to eat whole jalepeno peppers. Just grab one out o' the jar and munch it down.
Should I put just one tiny flake of crushed red pepper in a dish I'm cooking ....... My wife, when tasting same, will complain about how hot and spicy it tastes.
I'm sure it has to be a difference in body chemistry.
- winedope - 05-04-2002
don't be duckin, hotwine. not all of us wanna throw spears! I am of the like w/ like crowd, although I am always open to trying new tastes. As a child, I ate onions as you would an apple, and ate hot peppers with a glass of milk. Who's to say? If you like it, go with it. : )WD
- Thomas - 05-05-2002
Last night I enjoyed a complete dinner with just one wine all the way through it. We started with three different oysters on the half shell--just a squirt of lemon, if you please, no hot sauce, thank you; then we had fiddle heads (sp) over fetuccine; then we had sauteed soft shell blue crabs with garlic smashed potatoes and asparagus. Lots of different things going on in that meal--minerals and brine, tartaric acids, you name it. Heron Hill 2000 Dry Riesling, with an acid content of about .8% and a mineral quality that speaks volumes about the level of achievement in the Finger Lakes region.
Why do I point this out? Some would say those crabs go well with Chardonnay, and until last night I would have been one of them.
Definitely, preference plays a role, but I think chemistry plays an even more important role. One's mouth ph is important when talking about taste preference.
I like both same/same and contrary tastes when I pair wine with food, for different reasons. And, while we are on the subject, not every Chianti is as acidic as the one before or after it. It is too general to make broad, sweeping statements and I promise to stop doing so from now on...
- Randy Caparoso - 05-11-2002
Read all the responses, and it seems to me that we're essentially all in agreement -- even if it pains someone to agree with me.
The generalization that medium to high acid wines are probably better than foods with some degree of acidity, and low acid wines are better with foods with lower acidity (butter, oil, etc.), is as self evident as drinking milk with chocolate chip cookies. No one says you have to drink milk with chocolate chip cookies. We're simply talking about probabilities, or "higher percentage chances" of certain things going together.
But this is not to confuse the issue with idea of "contrast" as opposed to "similarity." Contrasting sensations, however, work better when there are also similar sensations working in concert. This is why oysters don't taste that great with Cabernet Sauvignon -- too much contrast, no similarities. Oysters, however, work with Sauvignon Blancs because the wine provides the acidity that particular food needs to taste better, at the same time finding common ground in a certain minerality or sensations of cold steeliness. This is the same idea of hot fudge going with vanilla ice cream -- contrasting flavors complimenting each other, while finding common ground in sugar components.
- Thomas - 05-11-2002
As I said, I will refrain from generalizing. But I strongly disagree with the idea that contrasting REQUIRES two items with some similarity in their taste elements or sensations. The best example my feeble brain can up with right now is Brie with Champagne. I have tried it, I have had my students try it in my wine seminar, and it is widely accepted in the class to be a wonderful pairing--the only similarity is that the two items have been fermented (of course, some Champagnes go through malo-lactic, but that really would be stretching the issue, since the acidity remaining in the wine is far from a lactic sensation.
- vinman - 05-11-2002
Maybe that's why the European model fits so well at the table, where wine is consumed daily, not as an excursion, most noticeable by American's whose preferences often suggest that they are steered by commentary, rather than the partnership between the dish and the glass!
- Randy Caparoso - 05-11-2002
I'm sorry, Foodie, but I beg to differ -- not with the fact that brie is complimented by Champagne, but your assumption that there is no similarity between brie and Champagne.
Yes, brie goes quite nicely with higher acid wines such as Champagne and Loire River Sauvignon Blancs because they share similar, earth toned aromas and flavors. The yeasty qualities of Champagne, in fact, serve to heighten the stony, minerally characteristics that mingle with the taste of brie.
I have always made the point that focusing on one component -- such as acidity in both food and wine -- is a simplistic approach to food and wine matching. Besides the factors of similarity and contrast of components, the major components themselves also entail body (relating to density of foods), tannin (relating to bitterness of foods), sugar (self evident), saltiness and hot/spiciness (usually looking for balancing sweetness and/fruitiness in wines), the little understood but pervasive sense of umami (combinations of amino acids contributing to overall sense of "deliciousness" in both foods and more mature wines), and last but not least, actual flavor (aroma related in both foods and wines) and texture (i.e. crisp wines/crunchy foods, soft or rounded wines/soft or oily foods).
This is precisely why so many wines go with so many foods. A Pinot Noir, for instance, may go just as well with the same salmon dish as a Pinot Gris, but for a different set of reasons. And the more complex the wines and dishes, the more reasons created.
This is no rocket science we're dealing with. A good match is a good match, as you and your students know instinctively. I look for the "high percentage" matches. I know you do because when faced with the complex meal you had the other night, you reached for the wine (a Finger Lakes Dry Riesling) that is likely to find the most similarities and contrasts in your foods. Sometimes we talk the same language about different experiences, but in this case we've had the same experience but are just portraying it differently.
[This message has been edited by Randy Caparoso (edited 05-11-2002).]
- Thomas - 05-12-2002
Randy, your last sentence is correct...
The problem I have here is that if you take the approach that one can almost pair any wine with any food (admittedly, a simplistic interpretation of what you say) then people, I fear, and I see nearly everyday in my shop, become lazy, unthinking, and uninterested in exploration all of which can lead them to miss some of the most complex and stimulating things that a "strive for the exhilerating" wine and food pairing offers. That is why I prefer contrast in pairing over same/same.
I like a good movie but I am always on the lookout for an extroardinary movie because if I simply kept going to good movies, ultimately I will forget how to identify and enjoy, or worse, become desensitized to something better. I also like serviceable art and writing, but I am always looking for art that makes me shutter and writing that makes me think in another, even oppopsite, direction.
Maybe it ain't rocket science, but there is nothing wrong in trying to reach for the planets...
[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 05-12-2002).]
- Randy Caparoso - 05-12-2002
I'm glad we're having this conversation because at least it clarifies much of what I try to contribute to the Wine Board. Please allow me to go further.
As you know, I'm coming off 25 years (just recently retired) in the restaurant business, 23 of that spent training entire restaurant staffs -- in the beginning, mostly about just wine, and as the years went by, more and more about how wine works in the context of food.
The standard method of teaching food/wine affinities is by taking five or six dishes and matching each one with five or six wines. The approach is not touchy-feely, but disciplined -- everyone is forced to break down the components of not only each wine (body, acidity, sweetness, tannin, etc.), but also the components of each dish (butter in the sauce, fat in the meat, char from the grill, bitterness from the sprouts, sweetness from fruit, etc.). It is a process of seeing how the components mix and match (i.e. similarity/contrast, positive/negative, etc.).
What always emerges is the discovery that each dish can be enhanced by more than one wine, for similar or different reasons. The importance of this is that servers can go out and recommend a single wine (and chefs can confidently prepare dishes) knowing that it CAN go with multiple dishes -- which is precisely what happens in every fine restaurant, at every table on any given night. People order just one or two wines to go with five, six or more dishes.
To you, this may sound like I'm teaching conservatism, but to me it's just dealing with reality. The same reality you found with your food-versatile Finger Lakes Riesling.
Naturally, over the years, my wine lists became known for its great variety of choices outside the box -- the same thing you actively engender -- which was done in an effort to give my staffs as much "ammunition" as possible when making their learned wine recommendations.
If anything, my wine lists have been criticized by guests, owners, and colleagues for being too esoteric. But in reality, I've always endeavored to strike a balance between the adventurous and familiar choices. Although I've always enjoy sharing new and different things, I've always tried to avoid shunning the "same ol'-same ol'," looking upon that as nothing more than reverse snobbery. And besides, much of what used to be weird and esoteric has become all too ubiquitous today -- an evolutionary process that will go on and on. My attitude is simply that the gastronomic value of a single wine doesn't really change, whether it's adventurous or all-too-familiar. What changes is our attitude.
And the only real danger is when our attitude becomes entrenched into a single mindset, whether it's "familiar is bad" or "adventuous is too much trouble."
- Thomas - 05-12-2002
Didn't know you retired...now you have time to come visit in NYCity...
As usual, you are saying what I also believe. My aim, however, is to excite people about wine--the wine industry certainly seems uninterested in doing it. I, too, teach people by arranging a few wines with a few dishes and have them experience how--for different reasons--one dish can pair with more than one wine, and the other way round. I also like to challenge them to explore what seems wrong because of what they have been led to believe (one of my favorites is to show them how not all red wines go with red meat) I want them to try wines that are opposites of the foods and truly think while tasting, to experience how some of those opposites attract, just like me and my wife.
One reason I like southern Italian reds with tomato sauce, which I incidentally have taken to adding Madeira during cooking, is that plums and tomatoes is an off-the-wall but interesting, pairing (the plums being the quality of those prunish southern reds). In fact, I just polished off a ravioli in tomato sauce with Copertino. I do this on Mother's Day to remember my mother and those Sunday dinners--taste also has a lot to do with environment and recollection.
[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 05-12-2002).]