Cross Purposes in Barolo

There is lot of material out there that would have us believe that the categorization of growers into traditionalist or modernist in Barolo is no longer helpful and that, for the most part, all wineries today have adopted aspects of both camps. Whether this assertion irritates you depends on how you define the terms.  And that in turn depends on from which side you approach it. 

You can take the view - as articulated by Silvia Altare and Chiara Boschis - that what the “modernist” movement represented at its outset was support for innovations of all types, across both viticulture and vinification practices, including simply encouraging lower yields, adopting cleaner practices in the cellars and even single vineyard bottling. It was an attitude more than a mandate to pursue any particular technique. Included among these, but by no means the sole focus, were ideas in relation to taming the tannins of nebbiolo by adopting shorter fermentation periods and aging the wine in barrique rather than botte. Extraction levels thus were more controlled. New wood and small aging vessels allowed for more complete oxygenation of the wine, smoother tannins and more polished fruit. The result was cleaner wines that could be drunk sooner than was the prior norm. Proponents were simply adopting many of the practices that were common elsewhere - especially in Burgundy - whose financial success stood in stark contrast. There was a strong need to do something since Barolo the region was truly suffering financially. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this last point, nor the sense of extreme regionality of the Langhe at this time. Few had ever left the region.

By this definition the traditional approach is one anchored in the past, reluctant to make changes that were essential to the survival of the region by steadfastly making wines that were not getting favorable attention in the growing global market, and particularly not from the American consumer.  Innovation was the key to generating interest and enthusiasm. And so, by this definition, the moment you innovate or experiment in any meaningful sense you have to accept that you have adopted, at least in part, the ‘modernist” mantra. You were moving away from the rigid traditions of the past and so from the label of being a traditionalist.

Since clearly the traditionalists today are also using the latest ideas in the vineyard as to pruning methods and canopy management and the lowering of yields - and they buy the newest desteming machines and other equipment for the cellar - and since many original modernists have now dialed back their attachment to some of the cellar practices they so espoused three decades ago - a commentator could legitimately assert that everyone is moving to the center and the traditionalist/modernist divide should accordingly be set aside as anachronistic. The argument runs that to be a “modernist” reflected only an attitude. And since all of Barolo has embraced this new enthusiasm for innovation and experimentation to improve the wines, one can put the divisive traditionalist / modernist distinction to bed.

And everyone can get along with each other…. 

But by another definition the divide is still very much alive. This definition draws the distinction more narrowly by focussing only on what the wine in the glass tastes like. There is no doubt that wines of all styles are benefitting from all manner of innovation, but a wine made with long fermentation in wood under submerged cap followed by maturation in large old oak botte simply tastes different from a wine that has undergone shorter and more vigorous fermentation and subsequent aging in new barrique. And that style difference is so pronounced as to outweigh any other innovative elements in their viticulture or vinification that the wines may have in common.  Taking this approach, the labelling of “traditionalist” and “modernist” is really shorthand pertaining only to how you perform the specific fermentation and aging tasks set out above, which in turn so emphatically define the style of wine. There is the “original Barolo” style and every other style.

When traditionalists say they had to be strong throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to resist the pressure to change from making Barolo as as their fathers and grandfathers had made it to following the modernist winemaking template, they surely define this only in terms of these new techniques in the cellars.  I am sure it was not controversial to perform improvements in viticulture. Nor to try and keep the cellar cleaner. Nor to buy the newest equipment. Traditionalists do not think about the Modernist group principally as a group supporting all fresh ideas and experimentation. They think of it narrowly as a specific winemaking formula in the cellar, which results in wines of a very distinctive style.  Thus they hold out that the division is still real and helpful to the consumer in identifying the style of wine that can be expected in the glass. This style difference is so marked that some assert that the wines made in the newer style may be very good wine, but are not properly defined as Barolo.

Like most consumers, I can normally taste the style difference. And almost always by the second glass ! And so I still define growers in one category or another, using the labels “traditionalist” and “modernist” in the narrower sense of how they treat the vinification and the amount of new wood used in aging. I do struggle with those who assert that everyone today is making beautiful wine and there are now numerous different styles all of which are wonderful expressions of terroir, and there are people in the middle of the spectrum using 500 liter tonneau or leaving the wine in barrique only during malolactic, and so Barolo has moved on from this celebrated “traditional / modernist” distinction of the past. I don’t think Mauro Mascarello would agree. You either use barrique or you don’t. Your Barolo is either “original style” or it isn’t. The test, ultimately, is whether the distinction holds as reflected by what is in the glass as evaluated by the consumer. 

So it seems to me the two sides are talking at cross purposes.  A former modernist is likely to take the view that everyone now has the innovation bug that was so stimulated by the modernist group in the 1990s and so it is time to retire the labels. A “former” traditionalist, however, will likely assert the division still has value, because “original” style Barolo is stylistically so different from one aged in new barrique and the market recognizes this.

What must be acknowledged by everyone is that at a certain time Barolo’s recent history a set of growers promoted significant changes that drew a lot of favorable attention to the region - especially from American critics - and that the region benefited financially from that renewed interest. HIgher prices allowed for reinvestment, including of course by traditionalists.  Even if the more recent direction has seen a reversal of many of these more radical changes in the cellars by some of the wineries that had previously vigorously sponsored and pioneered them, the region as a whole must be grateful for the life in every sense that has returned to Barolo as a result of the dynamism of some committed individuals some decades ago.