REGULAR HOURS: TUESDAY-THURSDAY 12-6PM // FRIDAY & SATURDAY 12-8PM // SUNDAY 12-5PM // CLOSED MONDAYS
EXTENDED HOLIDAY HOURS: OPEN MONDAY // FRIDAY TO TUESDAY OPEN UNTIL 8p // NYE 11a- 5p // CLOSED 1/1 and 1/2
“I had sworn I wouldn’t scream” yet here we are
“I had sworn I wouldn’t scream” yet here we are
Introduction
I had sworn to myself that I would conclude this very “gray” year on a note of optimism, to consider that “Wine Not”, aka “The Screeds”, was nothing more than a passing excess, a slight emotional overflow, the reflection of a frustration with a world somewhat out of tune (and that’s putting it mildly). I even had the firm intention, I confess without hesitation, of making you smile, perhaps even laugh, in this final publication of 2025, of being light, frivolous, almost carefree. Until the moment when, this morning, I made the mistake, what am I saying, the fault of rereading an article by Jordan Mackay, published on one of the most respected oenophile platforms on the web, adorned with a title as seductive as it was peremptory: “The New Rule of Wine Pairing.”
Let us be clear. I firmly believe in journalistic freedom, in the confrontation of divergent opinions, and in the essential role of new platforms in their ability to inform and educate without borders, in what one might readily describe as a globalizing ambition. Above all, I believe in freedom of expression. But I take issue when a journalist, or influencer (the lines having become delightfully blurred), allows himself to write without guaranteeing factual rigor, without in-depth research of the subject, and thus contributes to instilling false or approximate ideas and beliefs in the consumer, while sheltering behind the credibility of merchants and sommeliers who are nonetheless well regarded. Like Byron Houdayer’s article, “The Case Against Orange Wine,” these two publications seem bound by the same casualness of writing. A casualness more problematic because, carried by the notoriety of their authors and publishers, it sometimes flirts with accepted truth or, even for some readers, a new profession of faith. Thus, once again, I find myself obliged to don the unenviable role of anti-Christ to these false truths, to deliver to you the accurate correction of the pronouncements of this new “Messiah of food-and-wine pairing.”
Gastronomy
First, Mackay writes:
“The current dining scene is so radically different from that of a generation ago that the very notion of classic food-and-wine pairings can seem almost obsolete, if not impossible.”
Let us clarify. The evolution of styles and influences in no way alters the fundamental foundation of food-and-wine pairing rules, which rest on empirical traditions and complex chemical and organoleptic concepts, not on this quarter’s TikTok trends. Allow me to remind you, Sir, that “Gastronomy” only laid its foundations with the refinement of haute cuisine in the eighteenth century, at the advent of the first restaurants. The modern concept of gastronomy truly emerged at the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the term coined in 1801 by Joseph Berchoux, then more precisely defined by Brillat-Savarin in 1825. Since that time, so-called gastronomic cuisine has never ceased to evolve, to change, to transform just like wine, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. And yet, despite these constant mutations, the basic rules of pairing have never disappeared. They have adapted to new culinary influences without ever being overturned. It is therefore not new gastronomy that should be blamed, but rather the democratization of the word “Restaurant,” now generously affixed to every possible form of culinary establishment. I will therefore dare to declare that the true cause of the ailment is what might be called “culinary wokeism.” From the tavern to the three-star Michelin temple, all are now united under the banner of the “gastronomic.” The result: There is no longer small wine or grand wine of exception, but simply “wine,” placed on menus or wine lists for its Instagrammable potential and the passing mood of the wine buyer.
The rules of food-and-wine pairing are, in truth, unexplained myths.
For economic and social reasons, great sommeliers have too often been replaced in establishments by graduates of oenological kindergarten. “Traditional pairing seems almost outdated, even stiff,” writes Mackay, a sentence that perfectly reflects this reality, where learning is reduced to a superficial veneer, and where anyone can now proclaim themselves a Wine Expert without understanding the fundamental rules of molecular reactions between liquids and solids. Certainly, science and the research work of François Chartier now allow us to better understand these concepts. But they are primarily intended to explore new pairings without ever transgressing the basic rules: harmony of volume, form, texture, taste, and aroma.
Yes, a wine list can evolve with the seasons and the sommelier’s curiosities. It can be exuberant, international, red, rosé, white, orange, carbonic, sparkling, or chillable. But if it claims to be “gastronomic,” it must enable coherent pairings for the consumer and not a cheerful “Whatever!” So, Sir, do not confuse a wine bar–restaurant like Birdie’s (Austin, Texas) or Smithereens (NYC) with the concept of a gastronomic restaurant. One goes there to discover wines and eat in a relaxed in informal atmosphere. So, to place them in the same crab basket as institutions such as Le Bernardin or The French Laundry (to name as an example), where the science of the sommelier reaches its highest degree of distinction, is at best an approximation, at worst an act of intellectual imposture.
A great lack of elegance
Finally, let us not confuse the classics of cuisine and their pairings with the universal rules of food-and-wine pairing.
Sir, it is hardly elegant to take as witnesses and victims of your demonstration respected sommeliers such as Caroline Clark, beverage director at Wolf’s Tailor and Brutø, by diverting her words toward a subject sensibly different from the one addressed in your article. “There is immense wisdom in traditional pairings, and it would be foolish to ignore them entirely. And then we welcome very diverse audiences. For some, it may be their first visit to a Michelin-starred restaurant, and they’ve never experienced the pairing rituals that some of us sometimes consider too conventional.” (C. Clark) To suggest that food-and-wine pairings are only relevant for the ignorant, the uneducated, or the non-hipster of the modern world is not only condescending, but historically absurd. Classic pairings have proven themselves by harmonizing perfectly with specific dishes of traditional gastronomy meal. Why should it be any different now? Why overturn everything, upend everything, like an eternal adolescent seeking to prove his singularity by claiming that 2 + 2 = 2, when everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4?
First Conclusion
I must admit it: your conclusion is short and concise, and it reveals both a doubt and a truth. For that, hats off. Because yes, one must master the classics before venturing toward experiences that are sometimes more holistic than coherent.
“Indeed, in those rare cases, the spark produced by a perfect pairing whether meticulously conceived or discovered by chance can forever etch both the dish and the wine into memory.” (J. Mackay)
And that, precisely, is what we call the art of sommelier.
Finally, nothing will truly change until the sommelier integrates the fundamental concept of the missing link namely, a less globalizing approach that merely interrelates solid and liquid while disregarding the individual selective memory of taste and smell.
Second Conclusion
I promised myself to make you smile and even laugh at the end of the year, so here it is:
Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
Ice cream.
Ice cream who?
ICE CREAM SO YOU CAN HEAR ME!
M. B
Memorandum:
Make no mistake, I have the utmost respect for Jordan Mackay and for the significant educational work he has done in service of the wine world. That said, the statements made in his article can easily be interpreted by consumers in much the same way I interpreted it in this “Screeds”. I doubt I am either the first or the last to read it that way. So, let’s be clear...the words and opinions expressed in these bulletins are, and will always remain, strictly my own. They speak for no one but me, which is precisely the point. I also fully acknowledge a deliberate intent to offend at times, to better educate. Tepid pedagogy bores me; friction, on the other hand, brings clarity. Accordingly, I accept without hesitation that others may feel entitled or even morally obliged to challenge me, to debate me, or, if necessary, to excommunicate me from their belief systems (often comfortable, sometimes dull, and too often hollow). I would do exactly the same were the roles reversed. A matter of intellectual consistency and the basic survival of critical thought.
Happy New Year 2026!
Thanks for taking the time to read it. I promise this was the short version.
Display prices in:USD
