What does “harmonic wine” really mean? Harmony, as in music, is not just one. Every wine has different balances, related to typicality and origin: a Barolo does not “sound” like a Riesling. More than a rule, it is an exercise in common sense.
A couple of years ago, leading a masterclass at Taormina Gourmet (an excellent event organized by Chronicles of Taste), a gentleman, while we were tasting I think a vertical Aglianico del Vulture, said to me. “but this is not a harmonious wine.” I replied that the concept of “harmony” was essentially musical, and Bach’s was different from Debussy’s. He replied that Debussy had never tasted it, triggering hilarity from those present.
Because definitions need to be put into context
But beyond the episode, what I always tell my sommelier friends is that contextualization of definitions is very important. We cannot, in my opinion, disregard the different types, in short. Especially when it comes to harmonious wines.
Harmony for a Barolo, one thing for a Franciacorta and another for a Passito di Pantelleria. Everyone has their own harmonies, and they are related to their origin and, therefore, to their typicality, or typology, as you prefer.
There is no universal harmony (in wines)
There is, in my opinion, no universal harmony, at least in wines. Then, for the Universe it will be different, I do not argue. But every wine has distinctive characters and, accordingly, specific balances and harmonies. A little extra tannicity for a Barolo or a Taurasi, for example, does not invalidate its harmonic expression. So does a little sharp acidity in a Riesling. Without exaggeration, of course, but with respect for their most typical expressions.
It seems to me a way to interpret wines and origins, and we need to articulate the definitions we ascribe to each wine according to this. This will not be apodictic law, but an exercise in common sense.
