TN: Miscellaneous October notes

Typed these listening to Robert Schumann’s Symponic Etudes Op. 13, interpreted by Alfred Cortot (live in London 1929), Sviatoslav Richter (in the studio 1971 and live in London 1968), and Vladimir Sofronitsky (live, presumably in Moscow, 1959).

Castello Banfi Brunello di Montalcino 1997
Thanks to my parents. Definitely more international in style than earlier vintages, and not to its advantage, I am afraid. Full ruby-red-black colour. Remains oaky, somewhat nutty, of course due to the partly no less roasted fruit. Quite glyceric surface, rather boring nutty tannin underneath that lacks finesse, same as the “fruit”. Relatively (but not badly) evolved, one to drink anytime. Rating: 88-

Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf-du-Pape Cuvée Marie Beurrier 1998
Ordered from a restaurant wine list with Oliver and Remo. I remain convinced this was subtly corked (so subtly, we could not possibly refuse it, plus it was the last bottle they had anyhow), but then, no two bottles of this wine I have had were ever the same (another at this same restaurant, presumably from the same case, was spectacular!). Ruby-red with a soft orange hue and medium black reflections. Tiny bitter note and off nuttiness, a little dried red beet as a result. But then, noble, complex nuts also, rose-hip, some sweet pipe tobacco, tiny sweatiness. Quite flavourful tannin. Fairly long despite the admittedly barely obvious cork taint. Profits from 2-3 hours-plus airing. Well balanced, ageworthy wine that especially in pristine condition should profit from more bottle age. Rating: 91+ (or: N/R)

Azienda Agricola Brigaldara Amarone della Valpolicella Case Vecie 1999
Another thick and milk-chocolatey bottle, still floral but now also lightly curranty-roasted, as this is becoming increasingly hot with bottle age as the fruit is wearing off and the 16% alcohol sticking out as a result. This tasted better 24 hours later, not oxidized at all, but with the alcoholic heat blown off. We are slowly drinking up remaining bottles. Rating: 90-
Decanted the next bottle for five to six hours before serving, at which point it was just beautiful. What an exceptional QPR buy this was for Amarone! Rating: 91-/90-?

André Brunel Les Cailloux Chateauneuf-du-Pape 1998
A coolly-stored bottle I opened for Remo. Full fresh purple-raspberry-ruby with black reflections. Still a bit young, this started out a bit youthfully bitter, but soon hit form, tasting like the archetype of Grenache (although in reality, it is no more than a two-third Grenache): Kirsch liqueur fruit, soft raw beef juice, pepper and roasted lavender and rosemary. Minor flintstony-pebbly stone dust. Youthfully tannic. A very well balanced wine of great purity, fairly concentrated (at least enough so for its 15% alcohol). While greater, more serious, absorbing or mesmerizing (or simply more complex, deeper, more finesseful) Chateauneuf can be had, this is a classic in the European sense of the term (= “as it should be”), and what a great QPR buy this was at release. Remarkably resistant to oxidation in the open bottle (this hardly budged), just the faintest possible leather and smoke finesse notes after 12 and 24 hours. While I did not underestimate this wine’s quality, I may have underestimated its ageworthiness: I used to think of it as a particularly open-hearted, easy-to-appreciate 1998 back at release, and indeed, several cases “evaporated” (Rainer’s favourite expression to indicate there is too much air in his glass) between my friends and me back then. Then again, is it “better” now, or is it ever going to be? Dunno. Rating: 90+/91-?

Chateau Canon-La Gaffelière St. Emilion 1995
From half bottle thanks to my parents, who left me a portion to taste. Deep garnet ruby-red, black hue. Black cherry jam and forest berry mix, a little blackcurrant and chocolate, not refreshing but quite complex. Full-bodied enough. It is really the style that is coming into its way now. Mature in the sense that this is loosing freshness and tannin becoming drier and less flavourful (faintly cardboardy-powdery one is tempted to say) my mother remarked on how tasty this is right after the cork is pulled, and how much duller rather than livelier it gets with extended airing. Rating: 89-

Clos des Papes Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2006
Half bottle thanks to Remo. From a yield of 21 hl/ha. Quite deep purple-red, black hue. Port-like nose, grapey plum with a suggestion of Kirsch Schnaps, soft green licorice stick. A fairly complex, quite opulent, fruit-driven vintage, a bit darker-fruited, grapier, less red-fruity than other recent ones. Some, and nicely fresh tannin (with just a faint touch of green), but this should drink well soon enough. Quite full-bodied, with the fruit just barely balancing the 15.2% alcohol. Grapey sweet-and-tannic finish of above medium length. Remo did not seem too convinced, but really another promising (if again slightly hot) Clos des Papes. Rating: 92+/93?

Chateau Clos St. Martin St. Emilion 2000
Ordered from a restaurant wine list with Oliver and Remo, an utterly pristine bottle. Opaque purple, watery pink at the rim. Noticeably oak-spicy in comparison to the 1998 a couple of weeks ago, attractively spicy and thistle-, roasted almond and coconut-scented oak, but still, too much for my taste, even taking the relative youth into account, and the fact that this was at least half-closed. Possibly even more concentrated than the 1998, freshly curranty fruit, noble tobacco. Impressive density, quite thick and potentially smooth, and yet Burgundian in a way, very pure, with a faint underlying touch of green (not in a negative way, due to stems perhaps, more like the anti-oxidative greenishness of e.g. the young DRC RSV this marginally reminded me of). The strong underlying minerality currently shows less than in the pebbly 1998. Firm, attractive tannin, nice acids. Again, I was surprised by how much this resembles a (in this case obviously very modern-styled) Ausone. Remo kept repeating himself as to how much more he liked the 1998, but then, the 2000 was yet more shut-down. Qualitatively speaking, there seems little give-and-take, it really comes down to a toss-up of stylistic preference between the slightly more concentrated but IMHO unnecessarily oakier 2000 and the classic 1998. Rating: 93+?

Les Fils de Charles Favre Petite Arvine Hurlevent 2007
A bottle at home, just the same as at the tasting a month earlier, one of the tastiest Petite Arvines I have had in a while, one I can recommend, although not for keeping. Rating: 88-

Fontodi Chianti Classico 2001
Thanks to my parents, a wine I had not had in a couple of years. Retains a healthy ruby-black. Nicely concentrated, this time with a tiny bitterness to the tannin that wore off with airing, but still seemed to detract from its raciness. Never a Chianti that shows much minerality or the typical metal underpinning. Far from old, but not the best bottle of it anyway if all are/were like this, I would not recommend holding on to it any longer. Rating: 87(+/-?)

La Macchiole Bolgheri Messorio 2004
Ordered from a restaurant wine list with Patrick, Oliver and Remo. Opaque purple ruby, tiny ruby-red rim. Perhaps the ever so slightly hotter of the two 2004 Macchiole wines we had ordered from a restaurant wine list and tasted (drank) side by side, no less leafy, much spicier (paradoxically?), nuttier with oak (obviously), very concentrated, quite full-bodied. The alcohol integration did not seem ideal to me, but then, I appear to be more sensitive to this problematic aspect of (too) many modern wines than others. Intense elderberry (ironically a fruit flavour Oliver cannot abide). Ripe fruit, increasingly milk-chocolatier with airing. Quite complex already, but not the candy-like smoothness of the still more refreshing 2001 (I will not even go into a comparison to the modern-day legend 1997). Tiny, wild sweat note. Regarding the oakiness here, I am afraid the toasting is altogether too severe time will tell... Even so, I have no doubt that lovers of the style (who I doubt let wines like this age maybe settle in bottle for a year or two) will be reasonably pleased. Remo seemed to like it well enough, Oliver prefers the Paleo, and Patrick (usually a fan of Bolgheri and Supertuscans) mumbled and grumbled (= not very audibly) I forget... Rating: 93+?

La Macchiole Bolgheri Rosso Superiore Paleo 2004
A bit plummier, perhaps glossier colour, wider rim. Kirschier, smelled sweeter and as if rounder, less oaky (enough so), but really a touch bitter (Remo found this aspect downright disturbing), and shorter. Leafier in a drier sense. The modern wine making almost, though not quite, prevails over the fact that this is Cabernet Franc, whereas the Messorio is Merlot. Quite firm and intense with airing, nice complexity and depth, good taste of the grape someone observed, with the bitterness integrating somewhat, if not to the extent that convinced me that it will wear off with bottle age. Stronger coffee torrefaction to the fruit with airing, too. Closing down already towards the end of the night, thus oakier especially on the finish and aftertaste. While I was less convinced with the 2004 than Oliver, it does seem to be the finest Paleo I have ever had if I owned any, I would allow it to age some in bottle. I have no problem admitting I had more of a stylistic problem with both of these wines than qualitative. Rating: 91+/92+?

Chateau La Mission Haut-Brion Pessac-Léognan 1995
Thanks to Remo. Pristine bottle. Deep ruby-purple-black, watery at the rim. Terroir-typical brick/baked clay minerality, earthy black cherry, herbs, not so sweet pipe and cigar tobacco and roasted coffee, lightly peppery fruit. A little more crystallized fruit sweetness with airing, warming alcohol. Faint bitterness to the tannin (especially for a 1995), this is simply not as thoroughly ripe, opulent and round as many 1995s, nor does it have the concentration and stuffing of the best. Even so, this deserves more bottle age and may still turn out (barely) outstanding. It is not a secret I used to like the old Woltner style of La Mission better (it even used to figure on my favourite wines list), and honestly wonder why La Mission is so rarely on the qualitative level (or better!) than Haut Brion these days (tempting to think their owners keep it that way on purpose), but Remo (who likes exaggerating sometimes) had worse things to say: “tastes dead” or “like a boring soup”, and since then insists on calling this vintage “La Pion.” I say, wait but do not expect a miracle to happen. Rating: 88+/89(+?)

Provins Cornalin Maître de Chais 2003
Forgot to take a note, but since I rarely discuss nor recommend Swiss wines, thought I should at least mention the rare ones I like. Not metallic, not overdone, not overripe, not overoaked; just a nicely firm red with nicely earthy fruit and subtle metal notes. Quite good body and length. Rating: ~88

Valli Unite Dolcetto Colli Tortonesi Diogene 2005
A bottle my godmother brought along from a local organic food store. Since they tend to carry what I usually refer to as “organic niche wines” only (after all, many of the world’s top wineries farm organically, some even bio-dynamically, but avoid declaration precisely because they do want to be associated with “those people”). Not bad, not memorable, and in particular, only just typical enough Dolcetto, gastronomically soft and low-acid, if faintly tannic. Medium-short. Rating: 83

Vietti Barolo Castiglione 2004
Thanks to Remo. Medium-light ruby-black. Pretty cherry, faint nutty oak, some petits fruits rouges as in Burgundy, youthful but ultimately still a bit dry tannin. As at the tasting a couple of weeks earlier, it seems a matter of airing this rather early-harmonious wine the correct amount of time, as it does get racier for a while, showing more cut but also dryness, soon after an increasingly oxidative marzipan and soft chestnut sweetness, with prettier nut and a faint ginger top note, some dried rose-hip, then red beet. If this medium-bodied and -concentrated wine were more complex, it might have been outstanding. Barely more expressive if drunk from superior stemware, Riedel’s fish bowl Sommeliers Burgundy stem provides too much surface and volume for wine in this category (personally I can recommend using it for top wines only: the better the wine, the greater the difference for the better it makes and vice versa; in a worst case scenario, it can literally “kill” lesser wine but then, I have taken an oath not to drink favourite Burgundy and Piedmont Nebbiolo from lesser stemware anymore ever). Rating: 88(+?)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
originally posted by David from Switzerland:
TN: Miscellaneous October notesWTN: Miscellaneous October notes

Barely more expressive if drunk from superior stemware, Riedels fish bowl Sommeliers Burgundy stem provides too much surface and volume for wine in this category (personally I can recommend using it for top wines only: the better the wine, the greater the difference for the better it makes and vice versa; in a worst case scenario, it can literally kill lesser wine but then, I have taken an oath not to drink favourite Burgundy and Piedmont Nebbiolo from lesser stemware anymore ever).

I don't mean to hijack the thread but I always wondered how much a difference stemware makes. Is there a definitive answer to this? Or is it just marketing gimmickry? I own a fair amount of nebbiolo and since it's that time of the year I was thinking of asking Santa for one - I guess from your comment the Riedel Burgundy might be a good option, no? Anny other recommendations?

Cristian
 
I'm glad that your 98 Les Cailloux showed well. Recent bottles of this wine have been variable for me, some being very roasted and pruney, while others not so. In any event, I don't think that the '98 is one to cellar longer. I've recently been drinking up the 00 and 01 Les Cailloux, as I just don't think that they are long agers, unlike Les Cailloux from years past. I've stopped buying Les Cailloux after '01. The '03 was horrid raisin juice.

I found the 04 Vietti Castiglione to display "gobs" of ripe fruit and lots of oak. Really surprised me how spoof-like this wine showed.

Thank you for your notes, which I've enjoyed for many years. The level of detail is impressive and helpful.
 
I don't mean to hijack the thread but I always wondered how much a difference stemware makes.

Why not do some taste tests yourself?

I think there are differences across broad categories of glasses (tumbler, flute, syrah/bordeaux, burgundy), but clearly the big companies have gotten very specific in their desire to sell more glass than we would otherwise 'need'.
 
originally posted by Cristian Dezso:

I don't mean to hijack the thread but I always wondered how much a difference stemware makes. Is there a definitive answer to this? Or is it just marketing gimmickry? I own a fair amount of nebbiolo and since it's that time of the year I was thinking of asking Santa for one - I guess from your comment the Riedel Burgundy might be a good option, no? Anny other recommendations?

Cristian

It's debatable, but of major importance to me. I believe it depends on the wine. I don't mean to sound cynical, but better stemware will only bring out e.g. the finesse I love in wine that inherently has any. But yes, there's obviously marketing gimmickry, too.

Even Riedel has started to offer lines that are nothing more than that. The Sommelier series is different: it does all it's supposed to do, the only problem there is that the stems are so expensive, and such a nuisance to wash and dry without breaking, that I can only recommend them in strict relation to the average quality of wine one drinks (note I resist saying "average cost").

Even the nuttiest wine lovers I know, say, those people I refer to sometimes as "our little wine circle", would probably agree one really only needs a maximum of six Riedel Sommeliers: the Riesling/Chianti, the Burgundy Grand Cru (the so-called "fish bowl" used for Nebbiolo as well as Pinot Noir), the Bordeaux Grand Cru, the Hermitage (equally as great for Shiraz, Chteauneuf and Amarone), and the Vintage Port one, plus - provided one spends a fortune on Chardonnay, or more to the point, drinks it with greater regularity than me - the Montrachet stem.

Because Riedel's Sommelier stems are made to bring out certain grape varieties' strengths, using a variety of them is probably not ideal for blind tasting, however. If you want to spot flaws rather than enjoy wine, I recommend using the Sommelier series Riesling/Chianti stem. It's the most analytical stem there is, which is why it's actually ideal to drink Riesling and high-end white grape stickies of any kind, but it's a nasty little stem to judge dry reds.

There's likely going to be an outrage now against the necessity to spend such a ridiculous amount of money on stemware. I agree. The differences aren't subtle, but I still believe one should buy stemware in relation to the importance they have for oneself, that is, one's love for wine (the average time one spends on the hobby etc.). It's not the kind of thing one buys to impress other people, on the contrary, expect to be mocked at.

In a nutshell: whatever you do, do not pour any light Pinots or Nebbiolos into the "fish bowl" and be surprised if all you get is vagueness, diffuse aromas and flavours. And: whatever you do, try a top vintage of your favourite Burgundy, or any top vintage of Monfortino, Giacosa Riserva, or Gaja, from it at least once in your life. Then judge for yourself and let us all know! I don't mind being mocked at...

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Asher:

I found the 04 Vietti Castiglione to display "gobs" of ripe fruit and lots of oak. Really surprised me how spoof-like this wine showed.

Thank you for your notes, which I've enjoyed for many years. The level of detail is impressive and helpful.

Thanks for your encouragement!

I've had the 1998 Cailloux more than once lately, all consistent showings except for a corked bottle. As to the Vietti, while I'm not so convinced with it as others, I'm not sure it ever sees any new oak. I forget, sorry, I'd have to ask Oliver... Anyone know?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Cristian Dezso:

I don't mean to hijack the thread but I always wondered how much a difference stemware makes. Is there a definitive answer to this? Or is it just marketing gimmickry?

Yes and yes.

Mark Lipton
 
David,

I very much enjoy my Sommelier Hermitage stems for Barolo and Burgundy, too. I find the fishbowl grande allows too much plain air into the bouquet.
 
originally posted by David from Switzerland:

Typed these listening to Robert Schumanns Symponic Etudes op. 13, interpreted by Alfred Cortot (live in London 1929), Sviatoslav Richter (in the studio 1971 and live in London 1968), and Vladimir Sofronitsky (live, presumably in Moscow, 1959).

How was the Sofronitsky? I've had a bit of a hard time getting into his playing: at best he is tremendously exciting to listen to, yet sometimes I find he bangs rather than plays on the keyboard.

Have you heard this, his Carnival Op.9:
? I was happy to see it on YouTube as it seems to preserve the excitement he can create without too much banging.

-O
 
&site
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:

How was the Sofronitsky? I've had a bit of a hard time getting into his playing: at best he is tremendously exciting to listen to, yet sometimes I find he bangs rather than plays on the keyboard.

Have you heard this, his Carnival Op.9:
? I was happy to see it on YouTube as it seems to preserve the excitement he can create without too much banging.

-O

If you like his playing in Carnaval (earlier studio or later live version?), I suggest you give the Symphonic Etudes a try. The former is, even among his fans, highly controversial, whereas the latter is universally acknowledged to be one of his finest performances. Of course, most people think of him mainly as a legendary interpreter of Scriabin and Chopin, and rightly so, but there is more: apart from a Beethoven Pastoral Sonata that's also controversial (but to me anticipates Grigory Sokolov's more recent, revelatory interpretation - less banging there, though...), some of his most highly recommended recordings include the aforementioned live 1959 Symphonic Etudes, the live 1960 Schumann 1st Sonata, the later live 1960 (the one with the first-movement exposition repeat intact) Schubert last sonata D.960, plus some Schubert Impromptus scattered across several recitals.

In general, by the way, the most reliable CD transfers are those by Denon, but I'm told those on Classound and Vista Vera come close (and are less expensive/easier to come by). Avoid pirate label releases at all cost (pun intended).

You'll find (some) sound samples on the following sites:


Including the whole of the live 1959 Symphonic Etudes here (you'll have to fast forward towards the end):


The complete 1960 Moscow Conservatoire Schubert D.960 in a direct from Russian LP transfer in fair enough sound can be heard here:

or in slightly higher definition sound:

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:

How was the Sofronitsky? I've had a bit of a hard time getting into his playing: at best he is tremendously exciting to listen to, yet sometimes I find he bangs rather than plays on the keyboard.

Have you heard this, his Carnival Op.9:
? I was happy to see it on YouTube as it seems to preserve the excitement he can create without too much banging.

-O

The Sofronitsky is the most exciting of the four sets of Symphonic Etudes, one might argue if that doesn't to some extent equalize Schumann's mood changes, but I think he catches them well. I simply love this performance (the same is true of the other three, though, too). Note the performance as a whole "feels" (and is) shorter mainly because Sofronitsky didn't play the posthumous variations (Cortot and Richter both include them).

As to the Carnaval on YouTube, I like it a great deal (the freedom with which he plays - he does bang, though), but have other favourites. My guess is (but I'm not sure) that this is the controversial Carnaval from the November 18, 1959 recital (which includes the acclaimed Symphonic Etudes and a C Major Fantasy that's well worth hearing, though hardly ideal). But then, how the man could play Arabesque, the Fantasy in C Major, the Symphonic Etudes, Carnaval, plus Fantasiestcke Op. 12 No. 1 and the Romance in B flat Minor, Op. 28 No. 1 as encores, ALL in one recital is a mistery to me...

Alternatively, there is a November 28, 1950 recording (studio if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not at all sure), which I understand is included in the new, low-priced Brilliant Classics box set (of which I don't yet have a copy). Plus there is another from Moscow State Conservatoire, from October 10, 1952 - maybe there are more, the situation's really rather confusing...

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
David, want to make sure I am thinking of the same Richter Etudes you were listening to. You know, the guy was as brilliant as he was inconsistent, and he recorded these things many times. The best one I know is one which was later reissued on Denon CD along with LVB Sonata op 90. I don't have the disk in front of me - have to look for it in one of my seven houses - but from memory the recording was done in Salzburg in 1971, does that ring a bell?

If that's the recording, it's monumental, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps my favourite Richter recording, period. Old school and yet modern at the same time, the best of both worlds, really. Cortot's is of course brilliant. Need to locate Sofronitsky's, I can only imagine what a riot his performance of this piece must be.
 
originally posted by .sasha:
David, want to make sure I am thinking of the same Richter Etudes you were listening to. You know, the guy was as brilliant as he was inconsistent, and he recorded these things many times. The best one I know is one which was later reissued on Denon CD along with LVB Sonata op 90. I don't have the disk in front of me - have to look for it in one of my seven houses - but from memory the recording was done in Salzburg in 1971, does that ring a bell?

If that's the recording, it's monumental, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps my favourite Richter recording, period. Old school and yet modern at the same time, the best of both worlds, really. Cortot's is of course brilliant. Need to locate Sofronitsky's, I can only imagine what a riot his performance of this piece must be.

The only two recordings of Schumann's Symphonic Etudes by Richter I know (two out of five mentioned in that discography) are the two I mentioned, the 1971 studio Ariola-Eurodisc having been reissued by Melodiya, Olympia and Regis most recently, the live in London 1968 performance on BBC Legends.

There is a fairly complete Richter discography on www.trovar.com, unfortunately the Denon release isn't mentioned there. The coupling you mention leads me to believe it is indeed the studio recording (same place, Salzburg, same time, September 1971).

The Sofronitsky is indeed (more of) a riot (love it!), currently available (in CD format) on Denon, Classound and Vista Vera.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Joel Stewart:
holy crap the font size

David, great notes...any experience with the 97 and 99 castiglione? wondering about drinking windows.

I don't know the 1997, and have not retasted the 1999 since release. In general, the Viettis I have had over the years have tended to be approachable soon, and yet, the best also keep for many years. The only debatable aspect seems to me whether they improve (in the stricter sense of gain in complexity, expression etc.), that is, appreciably. Again in general (generalisations make me feel uneasy), the Viettis (Rocche primarily) I know rarely dried out in the sense of becoming dry and hard, let alone tough - they simply seemed, well, fruitless. That is, they've tended to become lighter (wear off in bottle) in a (for Nebbiolo) harmonious way, whilst acquiring tertiary (often autumnal) aromas and flavours. Having said all this, I'm really thinking of older vintages (ones since 1982) that in turn I didn't taste in their youth - I have a hard time believing those started out as soft as some of the more recent vintages. In other words, I'm not sure. I'd certainly give any 1997 that is not a Gaja, Monfortino or Roberto Voerzio a try to make sure it's evolving nicely, and not trust it blindly. The 1999, unless very coolly stored, may be ready, too. Really no more than guessing, sorry to say.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
David, thanks for the further Sofronitsky recommendations - I'm listening to the Schubert 960 now. It's really not bad at all and has none of that banging (yet at least) that I have come to fear from him. But he manages to build up tensions very well in the Sonata. Talking music with you is always nice: I always seem to gain a new appreciation for artists I hadn't previously enjoyed!

-O
 
originally posted by Bill Averett:
Don't forget the Champagne stemwarein my opinion, the most important stemware, after Burgundy.

Good Champagne I like in the Montrachet glass. If it's only slightly sparkling due to age, I use a less aromatically giving Chianti glass (or if it's Prevost and the like).
 
Sofronitsky appears to *live* through the horrors of this great sonata (D960) in first person. One expects no less from him. For an equally compelling third person account of the same :) please refer to Afanassiev, live at Lockenhaus.
 
originally posted by Bill Averett:
Don't forget the Champagne stemwarein my opinion, the most important stemware, after Burgundy.

Right, my mom swears by them! How could I forget?! *Duck!* ;^)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
Back
Top