I know this is going to be shocking but Natural Wine is not something I defined. Nor did Joe Dressner, nor did Jenny & Francois.
My posted definition (two topics down) was out of frustration because so much misinformation by well meaning but perhaps new enthusiasts was being spread like fluffanutter over the blogosphere.
The parameters needed to be stated, clearly.
I did it.
The movement started in the Beaujolais town of Morgon
(my favorite spot for Beaujo)
in the late 70's by Jules Chauvet and Jacques Neoport with Marcel Lapierre. Fed up with chemical farming and additive winemaking these men (and followed by the so called Gang of Five) sought to make a wine from healthy soil, without yeast, bacteria, chaptalization, sterile filtration or sulfur. The Chauvet methode to me is controversial, but that's another topic for another time.
Back then enzymes, bacteria, blah blah blahs and all of the other tools used today were uncommon. Just like the rabbinate had to decide whether electricity was allowed on the shabbos, as the rules of Judaism were defined before electricity existed, people today have to decide whether some technique is in the spirit of Natural wine, just as they have to decide for Biodynamics. What I see as completely clear, other's see as convoluted. But it seems to me this is a whole lot easier than interpreting a modern day reading of let's say, Free Speech.
But of course, there was no charter. There were no written rules. It was not dogmatic. It was just a group of friends who spread the word, and those friends made friends who made wine in this way, and a movement was born. That whole evolution suits my proclivity to anarchism.
I want to point out that the genre never set out to be Luddite wine. The genre always accepted that manipulation is necessary, the way bread doesn't make itself. However, the wines metier is to be free of artificiality and yet be delicious. Remember that, natural wine is not natural for natural sake, but natural and delicious. Man is part of terroir, but violent processing and flavoring is not.
Sure, there could be a better term for Vin Naturel, but that is what it has been for the past 30 years, and it's really not up to me to change it, but I'd love to.
Any ideas?
(my favorite spot for Beaujo)
in the late 70's by Jules Chauvet and Jacques Neoport with Marcel Lapierre. Fed up with chemical farming and additive winemaking these men (and followed by the so called Gang of Five) sought to make a wine from healthy soil, without yeast, bacteria, chaptalization, sterile filtration or sulfur. The Chauvet methode to me is controversial, but that's another topic for another time.
Back then enzymes, bacteria, blah blah blahs and all of the other tools used today were uncommon. Just like the rabbinate had to decide whether electricity was allowed on the shabbos, as the rules of Judaism were defined before electricity existed, people today have to decide whether some technique is in the spirit of Natural wine, just as they have to decide for Biodynamics. What I see as completely clear, other's see as convoluted. But it seems to me this is a whole lot easier than interpreting a modern day reading of let's say, Free Speech.
But of course, there was no charter. There were no written rules. It was not dogmatic. It was just a group of friends who spread the word, and those friends made friends who made wine in this way, and a movement was born. That whole evolution suits my proclivity to anarchism.
I want to point out that the genre never set out to be Luddite wine. The genre always accepted that manipulation is necessary, the way bread doesn't make itself. However, the wines metier is to be free of artificiality and yet be delicious. Remember that, natural wine is not natural for natural sake, but natural and delicious. Man is part of terroir, but violent processing and flavoring is not.
Sure, there could be a better term for Vin Naturel, but that is what it has been for the past 30 years, and it's really not up to me to change it, but I'd love to.
Any ideas?
Comments