TN: 2006 Burgundy arrivage tasting

D

David from Switzerland

David Plattner
Max Gerstls annual trade tasting in Zurich, this year held on the 21st of November. Tasted a goodly part of these wines together with vintner Henrik Mbitz. I would like to say that the 2006s I have so far tasted are beyond expectations, but although this may be true, we were disturbed by a few oxidative and a rather great number of heavily sulphured wines, some of which looked and tasted like a throwback to Guy Accad method wines, which I thought were strictly a thing of the past. Let us hope these were corrective measures, a negative side effect of the vintage, rather than a new trend.
There were some good wines, of course, but that seems inevitably true of all Burgundy vintages, and to be expected in the context of a Gerstl tasting. Again, I did not come close to tasting all the wines (Henrik said something about my lack of professionalism when it comes to chatting with vintners, friends and acquaintances, instead of sampling wines and taking notes very funny given I am just a nerd).
Typed these listening through the new Vladimir Sofronitsky Brilliant Classics set box, 9 CDs of mostly great stuff for the price of one glass or less of truly decent Burgundy Grand Cru.
Notes presented not in the order I tasted them, but alphabetically by producer, only there in the order individual portfolios were poured.

Marquis dAngerville Volnay 2006
A bit oaky, especially for this producer, light but pretty fruit, a bit dusty with tannin. Rating: 87+/88?

Marquis dAngerville Volnay Frmiets 2006
More concentrated, a touch of duck meat, also tannic, more power and persistence, furry and quite stony. Rating: 89+/90?

Marquis dAngerville Volnay Champans 2006
A bit tighter, more tannic with a touch of green, but more complex. Rating: 90(+?)

Marquis dAngerville Volnay Clos des Ducs 2006
Fruitier, thicker, less Volnay perhaps, but nicely pure and balanced, this has finesse, is longer and the most red-fruity of the portfolio, and the tannin here is the relevant touch less dry. While this may ultimately not be better than the 2005, it is certainly cuddlier (albeit not too approachable) at this early stage. But I seemed to be alone in my (relative!) admiration for this producers 2006s (those I spoke to all thought them too tannic for the own good). Rating: 92(+?)

Roger Belland Santenay Commes 2006
A bit smoky, nice little fur top note, dry but lightly soapy fruit, good length, some tannin. Rating: 87(+?)

Roger Belland Santenay Gravires 2006
A nice medium weight with more minerality, more attractive terroir notes, greater complexity, more finesseful tannin. Rating: 88(+?)

Bonneau du Martray Corton 2006
Jean-Charles le Beault de la Morinire told me he had the 2005, to me the finest red I have had from this producer (he noted the 1961, which he appears to have had not too long ago, is great too, and that he had been unaware that vintage was any good for reds...) the other night and that is now slowly closing down and could use airing in a decanter if opened today, and that he still finds it a bit larger than life. He finds the 2006 more austere (it is). Again nicely stone-dusty, quite firm, not quite as fruity and high-toned as the 2005 (which Rainer recently thanked me for recommending; he said he would have overlooked their red, and I wonder if many people still do I certainly did not like it as well as the white until recent years). Well-concentrated. Lightly dusty-dry, furry tannins. Good medium-plus length. There are only about 500 cases of the red. Rating: 91(+?)

Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne 2006
There are about 4000 cases of the white. Pretty oak, quite intense and lightly oily fruit, good body, nice alcohol, long. Early-harmonious, maybe deceptively so: is this really as good or better than the 2006? Max Gerstl thinks this may be the best ever from this producer, and to be quite honest, my gut feeling told me there may be more to this than I was able to discern. I will admit some vintages make me more cautious than others. Rating: 92+

Bruno Clair Marsannay Les Vaudenelles 2006
Almond, highly extracted, fair enough body but good vinosity, medium length. Best on entry. Rating: 87(+?)

Bruno Clair Morey-Saint-Denis En la Rue de Vergy 2006
Grown through with oak but still relatively sappy, a bit viscous almost, shutting down on a tightly tannic finish. Probably in an awkward phase. Rating: 87+?

Bruno Clair Vosne-Romane Les Champs Perdrix 2006
Oaky, nuttier, a bit Syrah-like fruit, well-concentrated, nutty on the finish. Rating: 88+?

Bruno Clair Gevrey-Chambertin Clos Saint-Jacques 2006
From a yield of under 32 hl/ha. Cheesy-oxidative, medium complexity and length, a bit rustic and earthy. Disappointing showing for a wine from one of my favourite Crus, if no doubt in an awkward phase. Rating: 88(+?)

Bruno Clair Chambertin Clos de Bze 2006
Also a bit sullen, and if less oxidative than the CSJ then still enough so. Soft terroir expression for a wine from this site, although still pretty enough. Fair enough tannin and acidity too. Rating: 89+?

Gros Frre & Soeur Vosne-Romane 2006
Darkly dried-floral, partly already tired fruit, sloe (wild plum) Henrik said. Quite full-bodied, a bit too warming with alcohol. Seemingly old school, some used oak (I was told a maximum of 10% is new when I remarked on this). Quite sweet in the middle, falling apart to some extent on the finish. Rating: 86(+/-?)

Gros Frre & Soeur Clos Vougeot Musigni 2006
Somewhat Californian nose, a touch caramelized-jammy fruit for Burgundy, slightly acidity and bitterness spikes, quite well-integrated oak (50% of which is new), medium-short on the finish. More of a stylistic problem, though, I have to admit. Rating: 88+?

Guyon Chorey-Ls-Beaune Les Bons Ores 2006
More stewed fruit than the 2005, but not a bad buy for the money, this may still sort itself out a little. Medium length. Rating: 86+?

Guyon Echzeaux 2006
This tasted even more Accad-styled. Faint duck meat, quite luscious fruit, a bit warm with alcohol, and that undeniable touch of sulphur. Green oak, Henrik muttered. Medium-plus length. Rating: 88+/89(+?)

Clos des Lambrays Morey-Saint-Denis 2006
Now this smelled and tasted exactly like a Guy Accad wine. Cassis and Coca Cola, sulphur, weird. My rating is based on the assumption/hope this is just a phase, and not stylistic perversion. Rating: 85(+/-?)

Clos des Lambrays Morey-Saint-Denis Les Loups 2006
The material underneath a similarly shocking stylistic surface shows much greater subtlety. Longer. Rating: 87(+?)

Clos des Lambrays Grand Cru 2006
85% whole clusters vinified here. Shows lovely terroir notes and thus comes across as a bit less weird, crystallized berries if any, lightly scorched earth and tree bark, quite long on the finish. Rating: 90(+?)

Domaine Leflaive Bourgogne Blanc 2006
Soft oak spice, medium-fresh veggie oil fruit, sweet with a touch of alcohol. Rating: 83+/84(+?)

Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet 2006
Bigger body than the generic Burgundy, touch of alcohol also, vanilla oak (unusual for a Leflaive, or at least the ones I know), soft straw, scorched earth, fair enough body and length. Rating: 85+/86(+?)

Domaine Leflaive Meursault Sous le Dos dne 2006
Subtler and/or nicer quality oak, more integrated alcoholic warmth, longer, some bread dough spice. Rating: 87(+?)

Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Clavoillon 2006
Pretty oak with a sesame touch to the oak, first wine in the portfolio so far that shows ripe lime and limey acidity underneath (= a more serious combination of ripeness, freshness and cut). Nice fresh herbs. Better alcohol integration as a result, longer. Rating: 88+/89(+?)

Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Folatires 2006
Rounder if a touch more tannic than the Clavoillon, firmer, good medium-plus body, more depth and complexity. Nice Folatires. Rating: 90+/91?

Domaine Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Pucelles 2006
As usual the most minerally and interesting, and thus my favourite 1er Cru in Leflaives portfolio, even if not necessarily a greater success in this vintage than the Folatires. Attractive balance, depth and complexity. I would not say this is better than the 2005, but more prettily rounded and smoother at this stage. Rating: 90+/91(+?)

Domaine Leflaive Bienvenues-Btard-Montrachet 2006
A touch of thistle oak, but complex, softly but prettily spicy, faint straw and tiny mace, harmonious, subtle, long on the finish. Lovely wine. Rating: 93(+?)

Thierry Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin 2006
A bit cherry chewing gum like sweetness. Not as natural-tasting and harmonious as the 2005. Rating: 86+?

Thierry Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin Vigne Belle 2006
So faintly cork-tainted no one agreed with me, but there was a bitterness on the finish when I tasted it, too). Good density and ripeness, a bit earthy, not bad. Rating: 87+/88?

Thierry Mortet Chambolle-Musigny 2006
Fruity, softly meaty, again a bit chewing gum like, and simpler terroir notes than the two Gevreys. Rating: 87(+?)

Thierry Mortet Chambolle-Musigny Aux Beaux Bruns 2006
Scorched tree bark, drier earthiness. Little fruit but some surface sweetness. Medium body and length. The terroir seemed a bit subdued. Rating: 87+/88?

Henri Perrot-Minot Chambolle-Musigny Vieilles Vignes 2006
From vines that are 45 years old and over. A touch of bitterness from the oak, nicely old-viney fruit of above medium complexity, nice body and length. I never loved the style here, but still liked it better a decade ago, enough so to buy some 1996s at the time. Rating: 87(+?)

Henri Perrot-Minot Vosne-Romane Champs Perdrix 2006
Quite well-balanced but lightly nutty oaky, a medium-bodied wine that combines fair enough ripeness with sufficient liveliness and length. Rating: 88(+?)

Henri Perrot-Minot Vosne-Romane Les Beaux Monts 2006
The fine terroir shows despite some oak, extraction (always taken to the limit here, it seems) is not over the top, not too weighty, faintly rubbery but attractive, fair length. Rating: 89+

Henri Perrot-Minot Nuits-Saint-Georges La Richemone Vieilles Vignes 2006
The 2005 was a Nuits standout of last years arrivage tasting, and this is impressive again in 2006. From 70-years-old vines. Nice density, steel and pepper, brighter fruit than the other wines in the portfolio, good body and length, it were not for the modernistic style (and the shocking price tag), I might buy some. Rating: 90+/91

Henri Perrot-Minot Chapelle-Chambertin 2006
Apparently thirty harvesters had to sort out fruit for two days due to hail damage. Nice if slightly bland terroir notes, a bit earthy, fair body, medium length at best. Rating: 89+?

Henri Perrot-Minot Charmes-Chambertin 2006
Oaky but firm, with an almost salty old-viney core, intense, fair enough body, fairly long. Quite impressive apart from stylistic concerns... Rating: 90+

Henri Perrot-Minot Mazoyres-Chambertin Vieilles Vignes 2006
Again (more than?) oaky enough for its own good, medium earth and spice notes are promising enough. Rating: ~90?

Henri Perrot-Minot Chambertin 2006
Almost Guy Accad like in style, with high sulphur and huge oak that make this rubbery at present. Sweet but reductive, earthy, nutty, underneath it all quite terroir-expressive. Concentrated wine with upwards potential, made in a now popular style that I nevertheless find well-neigh impossible to appreciate. Rating: 90+

Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin 2006
Nuttier oak, smoother and sweeter than many, quite long. Ultimately a bit simple. Rating: 87+?

Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin Lavaux Saint-Jacques 2006
One-third of these vines are 12 years old, the other two-thirds close to 80. Reminded me of why I like Rousseaus style so much: elegant, also in the sense that it is a bit light, but quite complex, finesseful, nice acidity, longer, a pretty wine. Rating: 89+/90

Armand Rousseau Charmes-Chambertin 2006
Aged in once-used barrels. Meatier, thicker, good depth, less finesse and subtlety, but long. Volume instead of the terroir expression of the most serious Charmes (by other producers), but an outstanding effort for the vintage. Rating: 90+/91-?

Armand Rousseau Clos de la Roche 2006
Nicely oaked on the nose, but oakier on the palate than I find necessary. Quite flavourful, pretty acids, lightly walnutty tannin. Rating: ~90?

Armand Rousseau Ruchottes-Chambertin Clos des Ruchottes 2006
A bit oaky despite being aged in once-used barrels, walnuttier and more tannic than the Charmes-Chambertin, less thick and meaty, but more complex, one would assume this has greater potential. Even so, I would have loved to sample Rousseaus top three to really know what they could do in this vintage. Rating: 90+

Tollot-Beaut Beaune Clos du Roy 2006
Modern-styled and rather thick, I first though it is not overdone, but it is really a bit fat, alcoholic and mouth-searing. A touch nutty oak. The kind of sizeable Pinot style that will probably please those who were/are not born and raised Burgundy drinkers. Rating: 87+/88(+?)

Tollot-Beaut Corton-Bressandes 2006
Syrupy but dry, a bit petrolly, also warm with alcohol but not hot, good terroir notes, medium-plus length. Again, made not to be accused of being light, it seems. Rating: 89+/90?

Comte Georges de Vog Chambolle-Musigny 2006
Even if Henrik was not half as convinced with the village here as with the two Grand Crus, I personally feel this and the 1er Cru are the two cuves that have shown the most qualitative improvement in recent years (the top wines have always ranged from respectable to memorable). Nicely round, smooth, easy to enjoy, relatively long, and: the first taste of a portfolio that seems to transcend the vintage (all the Vogs tasted as if from another, a fraction better no doubt, but mainly different vintage). Rating: 89+?

Comte Georges de Vog Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru 2006
From Musigny vines less than the 25 years old, thus really a Musigny Jeunes Vignes. A perplexing wine insofar as it shows better at this early stage than the 2005, if perhaps only because it is unusually approachable. Round and candied, sappy, quite complex fruit that is almost Richebourg like in character. The beautifully primary combination of fruit and acids reminded me of some 1996s that in hindsight, I sometimes wonder, may never taste better than they already did at this very same stage. Rating: 91+/92-?

Comte Georges de Vog Bonnes Mares 2006
Plus myrtill (blueberry-flavoured) than the Musigny indeed. A bit more manly, nicely firm fruit, less floral and red-fruity high-toned, plus there is relatively little minerality here. Henrik sure loved it. My preference for the Musigny is such that I tend to look elsewhere when I buy Bonnes Mares, if at all, simply because it is rarely a favourite Grand Cru of mine in terms of sensuality. But the site sure brings forth structured, ageworthy Pinot Noir, often unusually broad-shouldered for Chambolle. Rating: 92(+?)

Comte Georges de Vog Musigny Vieilles Vignes 2006
Complex, a bit more glyceric than the Bonnes Mares, a bit darker-hued florality than in some vintages. Rating: 94(+?)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
Interesting notes, David. Thank you
On the subject of the Sofronitsky boxed set I wonder how much you'd enjoy Grand cru burgundy if nine bottles were available for the price of a CD? I regret that many very cultivated people think that recordings are the same thing as music. They are not, merely souvenirs of music, and while I recognize that one can't halt the match of history I do worry that ultimately recorded music will destroy the real thing.
A little note of unease that I usually don't think it appropriate to voice, particularly given that it's my profession, but such is the rarefied level of discourse here I dare to hope that I won't be misunderstood.
My collection of Sofronitsky LPs was won expensively and with difficulty!
 
I regret that many very cultivated people think that recordings are the same thing as music. They are not, merely souvenirs of music, and while I recognize that one can't halt the match of history I do worry that ultimately recorded music will destroy the real thing.

As much as I love going to concerts (one great thing about living in Finland is that student tickets to most classical concerts are practically free), I think that enjoyment of music can also be an enormously private experience that I want to enjoy without anyone else present. Why do you say recordings and performances are mutually exclusive? The first commercial recordings were made IIRC in 1898 and became hugely popular within a decade (weren't Caruso's 1902 recordings considered "hits"?) but that didn't put a halt to performances. In fact performances of major orchestras and opera houses are full all time - but I do think that the more intimate performances (Lieder, chamber music) are rare events and your doomsday talk might be true here: the last time I had the opportunity for Lieder by a "major" artist was in 1999 when M. Goerne was singing Schubert here.

I very much hope you are wrong: I love concerts; I love recordings. I go to about two concerts a week and listen to recordings all the time, but I don't see a conflict between them and want to have both available to me. And since I haven't seen many empty seats since the horrible weather and consequent breakdown of public transport in the winter of 1998, I would guess I am not alone. But is Angleland so different?

-O
 
originally posted by Tom Blach:
Interesting notes, David. Thank you
On the subject of the Sofronitsky boxed set I wonder how much you'd enjoy Grand cru burgundy if nine bottles were available for the price of a CD? I regret that many very cultivated people think that recordings are the same thing as music. They are not, merely souvenirs of music, and while I recognize that one can't halt the match of history I do worry that ultimately recorded music will destroy the real thing.
A little note of unease that I usually don't think it appropriate to voice, particularly given that it's my profession, but such is the rarefied level of discourse here I dare to hope that I won't be misunderstood.
My collection of Sofronitsky LPs was won expensively and with difficulty!
Click to expand...

Pray tell, what is your profession? To me, recorded music does not replace going to recitals (heard Leon Fleisher play in Lucerne a week ago) and concerts, nor should it automatically detract from doing so, on the contrary: I believe getting to know music one way is a reason to want to listen to it the other way, too, and in other "guises" or interpretations etc. But (and that is a big BUT), the problem lies in who is being promoted nowadays (lots of bores on the one hand, a handful of self-absorbed eccentrics and/or sentimentalists on the other hand, plus a handful of artist's artists in-between whom the public at large doesn't know), so that it can be hard to convince newbies it's worth going to concerts when e.g. it would be literally impossible to stage Der Ring des Nibelungen with Wagner singers of the quality and charisma of half a century plus ago (just an example, but I mean to be nasty and pick one that's hard to dispute - try and put together a cast consisting of people like Melchior, Lehmann, Flagstad, Nilsson, Varnay, Hotter, Windgassen, Bjrling, Greindl etc. & etc., and remember there once was a time when it could be done, and was!); this is what I hear most often from (relative) newbies, by the way: that compared to classic recordings, they never hear performances of that magnitude today regardless of where they go and how much they pay. As far as piano recitals are concerned, I'm convinced that kind of magic can still be found occasionally (and that in all likelihood, it wasn't always the rule in the so-called golden era of pianism either), but ironically, chances are slim if one dangles after the big names, a problem when in modern times, people are obsessed with big names. Of course art shouldn't be about instances of true magic only (note that in German, the words for art, craft and trade not only share origins but used to be virtually interchangeable). While routine interpretations are probably o.k. for incurable old crocks like myself, or those who go to cultural events only to see and be seen, they're obviously not attracting enough money and new people; in my humble opinion, the trick has always been to walk a fine line, as far as classical music is concerned, for its devotees to just be elitist enough to make others want to join in the learning process that leads to true appreciation - if anyone is able to prove (and soon enough) that it can be done the other (non-elitist) way round, I'll be the first to admit it (I'd be ever so happy!). Ultimately, perhaps, Glenn Gould was right that classical music already "died" when musicians and audience became separate entities (so that he longed to return to a time when the term "Hausmusik" had not yet acquired the pejorative secondary meaning of "salon music"). I personally believe blandness and workmanlike professionalism is what "kills" classical music.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
If I may simplify Tom's assertion, it is that many people, when they discuss music, refer to recorded music, which is an altogether different beast from music music (for want of a better phrase). While the two are certainly not mutually exclusive, I think what one gets out of even the most magnificent recordings (for me, Paul Jacobs playing Busoni's transcriptions of Bach's choral preludes) are not quite the same as live music. This applies to contemporary popular music as well, where mastering technology has distorted most CDs beyond salvation.

He sees a generation weaned on their IPods, laptops and high-end stereo sets, who think recorded music is music.

On a separate note, I've always found Rousseau's wines exceedingly difficult to appraise until about 10-15 years of age, when I decide they're either messy and unbalanced or simply awe-inspiring. The CdlR I usually put in the former category, the Chambertin in the latter.
 
Sad to hear about the Clos des Lambrays... the whole line-up sounds underwhelming...is this the "expected" style from them recently?.. I think the latest vintage I have tried was 1999
 
On a separate note, I've always found Rousseau's wines exceedingly difficult to appraise until about 10-15 years of age, when I decide they're either messy and unbalanced or simply awe-inspiring. The CdlR I usually put in the former category, the Chambertin in the latter.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I would have loved to sample the top three Rousseaus, but I believe I mentioned that. ;^)

As to "music music", I have to agree with Otto that there should be both, that listening in private, and in particular repeated listening, can be intimate and educative, and pure joy. I love live music, but to watch certain artists perform can distract from the experience rather than augment it, sometimes people in the audience can be a nuisance (to just give one example, I remember one guy sitting right behind me one time, who kept "explaining" to his wife what was being played, constantly mixing up composers, eras and compositions of course, whether she was supposed to think highly of the music or the performance etc. - unfortunately no one volunteered to strangle him), and sound quality isn't automatically superior only because it's live at all. Personally, what I like about recorded music is that one can get to know interpretations by heart, same as I love to be "surprised" by live performances. And while recordings allow me to concentrate on the music, recital and concerts are events and thus experiences of a different kind.

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 drssouth:
Sad to hear about the Clos des Lambrays... the whole line-up sounds underwhelming...is this the "expected" style from them recently?.. I think the latest vintage I have tried was 1999
Click to expand...

I hope not (that is, that it's really a change of style): the 2005 Grand Cru in particular was nice last year.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
Yixin expresses my point very well-I'm not really criticising anyone's relationship with recorded music, though the notion of getting to know someone's interpretation by heart I find odd, as in some ways the very notion of 'an interpretation' as though the performer has decided on a particular 'trade-marked' approach to a piece of music. This does happen but it shouldn't.
My simple point, really, is that the first recording of Beethoven's ninth would cost have cost in real terms now over 1000 whereas it can now be acquired for two pounds. It's just too easy. A purist view is that the right way to learn music outside the concert hall is to acquire the score and learn how to read it, which of course require very considerable dedication indeed.
What alarms me about record collecting is the very inappropriate personality cults it brings with it-the idea that the performer or performance is something different to and possibly more interesting than the music. I don't understand the idea that one can validly pass judgement without an intimate knowledge of the score-which isn't at all the same as knowledge of other performances, which is what recordings give access to.
 
hi David, I am a big fan of 06 reds, but on my recent trip to Burgundy ( where many were inevitably opened following 07 tastings ), the wines did not show favourably at all, somewhat unfocused and dusty in terms of tannin - a quality which was always there from the beginning, but one which IMO will ultimately serve as a personality trait rather than a flaw. Something similar had occured with the 91s around this time, so I am not exactly worried.
An exception was a couple of very smooth 06 GCs opened at de Vogue.
On the other hand, with ver few exceptions, I am less optimistic about 06 CdB whites. My hands are still shaking from writing down the alcohol levels at leflaive a year ago; thanksfully this will not be the case in 07.
 
originally posted by Tom Blach:
Yixin expresses my point very well-I'm not really criticising anyone's relationship with recorded music, though the notion of getting to know someone's interpretation by heart I find odd, as in some ways the very notion of 'an interpretation' as though the performer has decided on a particular 'trade-marked' approach to a piece of music. This does happen but it shouldn't.
My simple point, really, is that the first recording of Beethoven's ninth would cost have cost in real terms now over 1000 whereas it can now be acquired for two pounds. It's just too easy. A purist view is that the right way to learn music outside the concert hall is to acquire the score and learn how to read it, which of course require very considerable dedication indeed.
What alarms me about record collecting is the very inappropriate personality cults it brings with it-the idea that the performer or performance is something different to and possibly more interesting than the music. I don't understand the idea that one can validly pass judgement without an intimate knowledge of the score-which isn't at all the same as knowledge of other performances, which is what recordings give access to.
Click to expand...

I see. Actually I agree with all you're saying, it's just too restrictive for me. First of all, although I have expressed a certain (mild!) soft spot for elitist thinking, to force people to learn to read scores (we do force children to learn to read, though, I agree you have a point) sounds utopian to me. I'd be the last to be against learning and education, but force others, I believe history has shown us the pitfalls there. Secondly, I do not believe that there is an objective way to read scores (there is no music without interpretation, and one will even have to acknowledge that some read more imaginatively and thus better than others), nor that recordings catch a trade-marked interpretation. Artur Schnabel, for example, the first to record all of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, despite going through with the project, thought the idea that the records would forever constitute his interpretations (when in reality he neither taught his students nor played his repertoire the same way every time) horror. The above-mentioned Vladimir Sofronitsky tried to avoid studio recordings from a certain point onwards, so that much of what we have are live recordings that catch him on the wing, and it's fascinating to see that he did play differently each and every time (he apparently did so asking the permission of an audience to repeat a piece during recital sometimes, too). The reality is that most pianists I hear in live performances today almost mechanically repeat themselves - one might say this is a great thing, as one could take notes from their playing, whatever, what they do is more 'trade-marked' than recordings from the golden era ever were. Thirdly, since I believe a person can only read a score subjectively, the main reason I agree with you there is that I would not want my students to read abstracts, author's biographies, secondary literature and literary history before they read a book/text themselves, because I want them to enjoy reading, live their own thoughts, associations and emotions, but whenever I say this, I realize I really ask them to read e.g. a novel more than once, because when they read centuries-old works, chances are they're not going to get the best out of them the first round (ignoring the historical, social, cultural etc. background, that is). And what about plays that are meant to be staged, seen, heard, smelled, not imagined? After all Shakespeare didn't at first collect his "writings" because it never occurred to him he wrote for posterity. I'm digressing, but assume you get my drift: there aren't merely risks attached to governing other people's education and learning (same as our own!), it would be ambivalent to try and put obstacles into everyone's way and claim we could do so without taking the very fun out of it.

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 .sasha:
hi David, I am a big fan of 06 reds, but on my recent trip to Burgundy ( where many were inevitably opened following 07 tastings ), the wines did not show favourably at all, somewhat unfocused and dusty in terms of tannin - a quality which was always there from the beginning, but one which IMO will ultimately serve as a personality trait rather than a flaw. Something similar had occured with the 91s around this time, so I am not exactly worried.
An exception was a couple of very smooth 06 GCs opened at de Vogue.
On the other hand, with ver few exceptions, I am less optimistic about 06 CdB whites. My hands are still shaking from writing down the alcohol levels at leflaive a year ago; thanksfully this will not be the case in 07.
Click to expand...

I haven't had enough whites to pass a judgement - actually, I haven't had enough reds to do so either, but as to the reds, I'm not "worried" either. They should be taken for what they are, that's all. What worried me were stylistic aberrations, and of course the often high addition of sulphur.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
I used to know how to read music, but after years of not playing an instrument I have forgotten most of what I knew.

That does not limit my ability to enjoy music in either its recorded or live form. Available time and access to performances are the only things that create a limit. As an unreprentent collector of music on album, tape, CD, DVD, download (whatever form they are willing to use to sell it) I see the heights of elitism in "music appreciation" and audiophile circles.

At the moment my library has over 20 different performances of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Some of them I love to listen to (e.g. Karajan's 1977 with the Berlin Philharmonic) while I detest others (why oh why did I buy Bernstein's painful rendition). I have likely listened to another 30-40 versions, as well as hearing it live three times (thankfully never with Ozawa conducting). I will listen to the 9th whenever I can. It doesn't matter if it's in the car, in my ***********, on the lawn at Tanglewood or on my iPod while flying across the country.

Does my choice to enjoy music in whatever form I can get it make me less of a music lover? Does the fact that I will listen to Mozart on my iPod while typing a memo at work make me less of a music lover? Can I only love music if I set up the B&O speakers at a perfect distance & read the score while sitting in a perfect lotus position?

I do not get it. (BTW - typed this while listening to Carmen with Maria Callas - on my computer...)
 
music history exam in progress
professor: how many symphonies did LvB compose?
student: three
p: really ? name them
s: 3rd, 5th and 9th
 
I went to a much smaller tasting of 2006 Burgundies not too long ago. The only wine in common with your notes was the C-M 1er from Vogue. Your description is remarkably close to what I had noted. I thought it was drinking well already and had a nice juiciness (for lack of a better word) to the fruit. But at close to $175 (USD), such a piss poor QPR if ever there was one. I was happy to have tasted it and would love to have some for the cellar, but not at that price... Actually all the 2006 reds we had showed quite well at out tasting. Though none much higher (in relative points) than the ones you had. My favorite was the Nuits St Georges "Les Cailles" from Robert Chevillon. In fact the other two from Chevillon, the "Busselots" and "Roncieres", were good as well (just not as good). The "Hauts-Doix" from Groffier seemed a little heavy handed and maybe in an awkward phase; didn't impress me much. The other one we had was the Pousse d'Or "Clos de la Bousse d'Or". Again seemed a bit simple and quite light, but drinking well already. If there was a common thread between them all was that they all had a nice juicy red fruit profile with subtle tannins and nice acidity and with the exception of the "Les Cailles" (which seemed the least ready to drink) they all showed nicely if not altogether too complex.
 
originally posted by .sasha:
music history exam in progress
professor: how many symphonies did LvB compose?
student: three
p: really ? name them
s: 3rd, 5th and 9th
Click to expand...

Hilarious! The joke proves a point, though: where, if it weren't for recordings, would people in e.g. my area (don't know about yours) get to hear lesser-known works (needless to say, I don't mean Beethoven's other six symphonies, in my neighbourhood, at the very least the latter seven are all popular works - among classical music lovers! Those who aren't wouldn't know the Eroica either, nor any part of the Fifth except the first movement, and the Chorus from the Ninth, plus the Funeral March from the Seventh...)?
Obviously I'm saying this assuming we won't get anyone to be able and read scores before they develop a love for music. After all, children learn to read and write only because they want to be able and communicate, however much we "force" them.

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 Tom Blach:

My simple point, really, is that the first recording of Beethoven's ninth would cost have cost in real terms now over 1000 whereas it can now be acquired for two pounds. It's just too easy.
Click to expand...

Too easy for what? I find that to be a curious and, to my mind, unsupportable statement. I doubt that many musicians would deny anyone the right to hear their performance and would in an ideal world open their performances up to the largest audience possible. We all understand the constraints that make that impossible, however. To argue against the widest possible dissemination of a musical performance strikes me as the same instinct that assailed the transition from hand-copied manuscripts to the printing press.

A secondary point is whether the recording provides an experience comparable to what one gets in a live performance, which of course it doesn't. (This, however, finesses the question of whether all audience members at a live performance get the same experience, which quite often they don't) However, technology makes possible the production of fairly decent facsimiles of live music, albeit ones that require greater resources than the average consumer has for music reproduction.

A purist view is that the right way to learn music outside the concert hall is to acquire the score and learn how to read it, which of course require very considerable dedication indeed.
What alarms me about record collecting is the very inappropriate personality cults it brings with it-the idea that the performer or performance is something different to and possibly more interesting than the music. I don't understand the idea that one can validly pass judgement without an intimate knowledge of the score-which isn't at all the same as knowledge of other performances, which is what recordings give access to.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you're conflating art education with art appreciation. Do I need to master the techniques of oil painting before I can appreciate the work of Monet? Moreover, many people can read the score and still not "hear" the work because they lack the ability to abstract the written score to an auditory experience. For the same reason, many people can more greatly appreciate poetry read by the poet than they can the same work on the written page. It is the singular skill of the artist to be able to mentally actualize the symbols into sensory experience.

I do sympathize with your concern about fetishizing performance and interpretation to the exclusion of composition. To me, the one case where performance does play a major role in music is singing, where the performer is also the instrument.

Mark Lipton
 
David, I'm not saying we should force people to learn to read music any more than we should force them to learn to ski-but of course if you wish to enjoy skiing it might be a good idea!
Your analysis of modern pianism is disturbingly acute, and the situation is actually a result of a market in which consumers expect live performances to sound like recordings-something from which opera suffers even more.
I disagree that it's not possible to read a score objectively-the ability to do that is what marks out the greatest performers. Reading music genuinely accurately is an astonishingly neglected skill even at quite high levels in the profession.I'm not sure that the issue of some of Sofronitsky's more drunken performances is a service to his memory!
The comparison with the theatre is not really accurate-a musical score is an infinitely more precise document than a play and can exist perfectly validly without realisation.
David B,
You are a wine lover as well as a music lover. Do you enjoy a glass with your breakfast or while driving a car(not that I would object if you did!)?
No criticism intended, just though it would be fun to respond to this subject.
 
Mark, if you could only hear Beethoven's ninth every five years you might very well make quite an effort to acquire a ticket. I think what I am saying is that listening to classical music should not be too passive an experience if the rewards that it's capable of delivering are to be realised. I'm disturbed by the noise culture in which we live and would like listening to music to be a choice rather than a default. So many people have music on in the background when they are working, on their Walkmans and Ipods etc, and even, to me grotesquely, when having dinner parties. This is just too much, as would be drinking great wines all day every day. Worthwhile things deserve undivivded attention, or the perception of their value will atrophy.
 
originally posted by Tom Blach:
I'm disturbed by the noise culture in which we live and would like listening to music to be a choice rather than a default. So many people have music on in the background when they are working, on their Walkmans and Ipods etc, and even, to me grotesquely, when having dinner parties. This is just too much, as would be drinking great wines all day every day. Worthwhile things deserve undivivded attention, or the perception of their value will atrophy.
Click to expand...

I'll subscribe to that!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gch vingt ans de mes plus belles annes au billard. Si c'tait refaire, je recommencerais. Roger Conti
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top