So, what do people think of Cedric Bouchard?

originally posted by Yixin:
Glasses and decantingIf I wasn't so lazy, I would decant most champagnes. I also can't remember the last time I used a champagne flute; I like the Riedel Chianti glass for most champagnes, and for a lot of roses (especially saignee, e.g. L-B, V et S) prefer a Burgundy glass.

I think there's plenty of really nice champagne out there which are great for everyday drinking, and I don't quite have a place for Bouchard.
Click to expand...

I'd been using Chianti glasses for a number of years but (please don't hurt me) I've been converted to Zalto Champagne glasses. They really focus the nose and flavors. There are still a few Champagnes I've preferred from Riedel Chianti but 80% of the time it's Zalto for me now.

Anyone want a bunch of Champagne flutes? I'll throw in some port glasses.
 
One of the hoity-toity bars here uses Zalto. I found the champagnes too aggressive in them - we had the Krug range, sans Ambonnay. The Chianti glasses are great for the lower and non-dosage styles.

I also have champagne flutes for sale.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by Yixin:
Glasses and decantingIf I wasn't so lazy, I would decant most champagnes. I also can't remember the last time I used a champagne flute; I like the Riedel Chianti glass for most champagnes, and for a lot of roses (especially saignee, e.g. L-B, V et S) prefer a Burgundy glass.

I think there's plenty of really nice champagne out there which are great for everyday drinking, and I don't quite have a place for Bouchard.
Click to expand...

I'd been using Chianti glasses for a number of years but (please don't hurt me) I've been converted to Zalto Champagne glasses. They really focus the nose and flavors. There are still a few Champagnes I've preferred from Riedel Chianti but 80% of the time it's Zalto for me now.

Anyone want a bunch of Champagne flutes? I'll throw in some port glasses.
Click to expand...
I thought there was a prohibition against hawking stuff on WD, last thing we(I) need is $60+ wine glasses. Have to admit that fucker at MadWine has interested me in the Zaltos, curse that SOB and his apparently charmed life.
 
There was much discussion of the manifest virtues of specialized champagne glasses on another board, and I was sorely tempted a couple of times to get some. But I can't bring myself to spend $60+ on glasses, when I never spend that much on the wine itself. Plus I'm a clumsy oaf.

Get behind me, Satan.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
There was much discussion of the manifest virtues of specialized champagne glasses on another board, and I was sorely tempted a couple of times to get some. But I can't bring myself to spend $60+ on glasses, when I never spend that much on the wine itself. Plus I'm a clumsy oaf.

Get behind me, Satan.
Click to expand...

Here, Here, not sure about that last line (Satan and such).
 
I never really liked Godard for any intellectual reason. He's a stylist. That's what makes him great to me. He's far from a master storyteller. But man did he define so much in style. Images and sequences of images/sound/textures/etc that are among the most memorable in all of cinema for me. From literally every film. Not many directors/auteurs do that for me.

It's a personal thing. Like Peyra.
 
originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
Have to admit that fucker at MadWine has interested me in the Zaltos, curse that SOB and his apparently charmed life.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought that the life of an investment banker would be thought of as charmed till recent times?
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I never really liked Godard for any intellectual reason. He's a stylist. That's what makes him great to me. He's far from a master storyteller. But man did he define so much in style. Images and sequences of images/sound/textures/etc that are among the most memorable in all of cinema for me. From literally every film. Not many directors/auteurs do that for me.

It's a personal thing. Like Peyra.
Click to expand...

I can see why you would say this. And I understand what you mean. But I think this puts aside the profound and nuanced ruminations on the threats to personal freedom and free will, which have been in every film as well. Those threats might be represented by other people, groups of other people, intellectual gurus, governments, the police, terrorism (state sponsored or otherwise), consumerism, advertising, popular culture, work conditions, one's boss, wealth, socially defined roles, the passage of time, the weather, the other sex, one's own anxiety, boredom, cowardice, unoriginality, age, the poverty of language as a communication tool, the influence of history, or the tricks of memory. The extent to which he has pursued the subject is astonishing.

Commentators often think of Godard as so concerned with political movements. But what is so often missed is the sense in which Godard is concerned with how these movements and other forces coerce the individual. Think Emile Durkheim for a moment.

One of Godard's most striking works for me, is one in which he shows footage of Palestinians training for armed insurgence against Israelis. Extensive footage is shown of them training. While watching, the viewer has the knowledge that all of the people shown in the film were killed by the Israeli armed forces shortly after the footage was shot. To quote another of Godard's works "It was a film shot in the back."

What happens to people? Why?

Directors more concerned with the style of their heros focus on The Iliad and Hamlet. Godard gravitated toward The Odyssey and King Lear. Here are the obstructions to your freedom - to your life - he wants to say.

In Contempt Ulysses raises his arms at the sight of his homeland, but there is nothing on the horizon, only water.

And there is the continued concern with gesture (in the broadest sense). What it communicates, what it fails to communicate, what it pretends to imply, how it has been used in history, and how it goes misunderstood.

Some might say that that is a stylistic concern. I think it goes rather deeper than that. In fact, to be concerned with the implications of a gesture is the opposite of seeing it as mere stylistic artiface.

And of course, in the French context it is often hard to distinguish the style from the philosophy.
 
originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
There was much discussion of the manifest virtues of specialized champagne glasses on another board, and I was sorely tempted a couple of times to get some. But I can't bring myself to spend $60+ on glasses, when I never spend that much on the wine itself. Plus I'm a clumsy oaf.

Get behind me, Satan.
Click to expand...

Here, Here, not sure about that last line (Satan and such).
Click to expand...

There is some good material in the bible, whether or not you buy into any particular part of it. This is a version of what Jesus is reported to have said when Satan tempted him with an offer of dominion over the entire world. Jesus, you may recall, opted for what was behind door No. 2, instead.
 
originally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
Have to admit that fucker at MadWine has interested me in the Zaltos, curse that SOB and his apparently charmed life.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought that the life of an investment banker would be thought of as charmed till recent times?
Click to expand...
That's true, I was only referring to the F&B recited on his blog.
 
I'm looking for good, everyday, all-purpose glasses. Several people here mentioned they like Riedel Chianti for champagne. Would they work well with all other types of still wines as well? Or should I buy a bunch of other glasses to supplement the Riedel Chianti? If so, which ones would you recommend.

Thanks.
 
Who cares about "conceptual coherence" if the results smack of competently executed but somewhat forced experimentalism? This question applies to both Radiohead and Bouchard. Not that I don't like them, but Radiohead are our generation's Pink Floyd. Just as certain bands have always and will always appeal to wide-eyed kids who like Big Thoughts and Big Sounds, certain wines will always appeal to those who demand that their drinks make Important Statements.
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
Riedel Chianti GlassesI'm looking for good, everyday, all-purpose glasses. Several people here mentioned they like Riedel Chianti for champagne. Would they work well with all other types of still wines as well? Or should I buy a bunch of other glasses to supplement the Riedel Chianti? If so, which ones would you recommend.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
They're very good all-around glasses. If I were to buy two types, I'd do the Chianti and the Burgundy. But you needn't go to Riedel to get good glasses and you can save yourself a bundle with other producers that have similar glasses, e.g., Schott-Zwiesel, Ravenscroft, Spiegelau (which is now owned by Riedel).
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
Riedel Chianti GlassesI'm looking for good, everyday, all-purpose glasses. Several people here mentioned they like Riedel Chianti for champagne. Would they work well with all other types of still wines as well? Or should I buy a bunch of other glasses to supplement the Riedel Chianti? If so, which ones would you recommend.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
They're very good all-around glasses. If I were to buy two types, I'd do the Chianti and the Burgundy. But you needn't go to Riedel to get good glasses and you can save yourself a bundle with other producers that have similar glasses, e.g., Schott-Zwiesel, Ravenscroft, Spiegelau (which is now owned by Riedel).
Click to expand...

Thanks Claude! I'm assuming those producers' Chianti and Burgundy glasses are the same shape as the Riedel and sold under the same varietal name?
 
originally posted by Clarke B.:
Who cares about "conceptual coherence" if the results smack of competently executed but somewhat forced experimentalism? This question applies to both Radiohead and Bouchard. Not that I don't like them, but Radiohead are our generation's Pink Floyd. Just as certain bands have always and will always appeal to wide-eyed kids who like Big Thoughts and Big Sounds, certain wines will always appeal to those who demand that their drinks make Important Statements.
Click to expand...

Really, and truly, I don't know anyone who thinks of Cedric Bouchard's wines in this way. Selosse those would come to mind as the Important Statement. Bouchard is something else. Actually, it is Champagne for riesling -heads. Simple as that.

I know I didn't think to myself, "boy, this is such a game changing move" type of Champagne. Instead, I thought "this is good, I like this, this has something I look for in it". Not the same deal.
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
Riedel Chianti GlassesI'm looking for good, everyday, all-purpose glasses. Several people here mentioned they like Riedel Chianti for champagne. Would they work well with all other types of still wines as well? Or should I buy a bunch of other glasses to supplement the Riedel Chianti? If so, which ones would you recommend.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
They're very good all-around glasses. If I were to buy two types, I'd do the Chianti and the Burgundy. But you needn't go to Riedel to get good glasses and you can save yourself a bundle with other producers that have similar glasses, e.g., Schott-Zwiesel, Ravenscroft, Spiegelau (which is now owned by Riedel).
Click to expand...

Thanks Claude! I'm assuming those producers' Chianti and Burgundy glasses are the same shape as the Riedel and sold under the same varietal name?
Click to expand...
Shapes are approximately the same -- design patents prevent exact same shapes. Names are the same for Burgundy glasses, I don't know for Chianti, they may go under different names (as does Riedel's Chianti, alternatively sold as Riesling and Zinfandel).
 
I appreciate the advice, Claude. Got my eyes on some Schott-Zwiesel "Red Wine Glasses." The dimensions seem similar to the Riedel Chianti. Thanks!
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by Clarke B.:
Who cares about "conceptual coherence" if the results smack of competently executed but somewhat forced experimentalism? This question applies to both Radiohead and Bouchard. Not that I don't like them, but Radiohead are our generation's Pink Floyd. Just as certain bands have always and will always appeal to wide-eyed kids who like Big Thoughts and Big Sounds, certain wines will always appeal to those who demand that their drinks make Important Statements.
Click to expand...

Really, and truly, I don't know anyone who thinks of Cedric Bouchard's wines in this way. Selosse those would come to mind as the Important Statement. Bouchard is something else. Actually, it is Champagne for riesling -heads. Simple as that.

I know I didn't think to myself, "boy, this is such a game changing move" type of Champagne. Instead, I thought "this is good, I like this, this has something I look for in it". Not the same deal.
Click to expand...

I have very little experience--like, one bottle once during a drunken marathon--with Bouchard, and my comment stemmed from the discourse here, rather than on an accurate handle on the grower's style. Your comment re: Selosse makes sense, and it seems like he'd work better in my analogy.

It's funny--I've always kind of heard Radiohead on the level of "this is good, I like this, this has something I look for in it," and it's been the fawning reverence and insistence that they're a Massively Important band that's put me off a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top