Is there a "size bonus" in wine scores?

[Howard_Cooper]

Even in Burgundy, I often hear people say that a certain wine does not have the weight of a grand cru. Drives me crazy. A grand cru should have more length and complexity but size?

[Andrew_K]

Burgundy drinkers are Always looking for and expecting upward mobility in their scores? Whether it’s from further evolution or from a different more exalted vineyard there is almost always a reason to believe your not drinking 100 points.

When people drink something like HSS they know they are drinking top shelf cab and can’t see cab getting that much better really so the scores will be huddled towards the top.

Just a theory off the top of my head…

I think you’re right on the money. No better example is what I see with the critic JAMMY WINE on his CT reviews. He’ll rave about a great village wine and give it 79 points. Then taste the GC from the same producer and the review is nonplussed and he’ll give it 91 pts. Totally biased by the lieu dit and level.

[Vince_T]

its like music - louder is not always better even if it more noticeable.

Mahler fanatics are the Robert Parkers of classical music, and second in annoyance only to Shostakovich fanatics.

I spent part of college in music school studying trumpet performance (classical focus) and I am now working in the wine industry. My favorite wines are those with finesse, elegance, subtlety, and freshness, yet being a brass player, of course I loved Mahler and Shostakovich…so I have mixed feelings here haha but you’re definitely making some sense. I’ve thought about such comparisons myself.

What, then, is one to make of Ligeti’s L’escalier du Diable?

Perhaps best to quote Jeremy Denk:

How to interpret eight fortes? I think maybe I should hurl my whole body at the piano as violently as possible and hope for the best. They would find my bloody corpse weeks later amid the moldy coffee cups, odiferous testament to my devotion to the composer’s intent. How would eight be different from seven? Both must be so searingly loud as to be painful, a distinction between degrees of agony: if seven fortes is like being disemboweled by a wolf, then eight is like being disemboweled by a bear.

I mean, for some Berserkers, Sine Qua Non might not be the worst comparison to being disemboweled by a bear.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Wait. This is something new? Been going on for 15+ years!

I just read two big scores notes by Galloni, and he was fixated on “unctuousness”. Big jammy yummy low acid new oak crap. I had one of them tonight and moved on.

LOL. Definitely wasn’t claiming it was something new, more like a universal human tendency based on palate cravings for sugar and fat.

The interesting thing to me about CT is how you can observe this tendency “in the wild” with ordinary drinkers. A striking thing on CT is how people will be like “big and bold! ONE ZILLION POINTS” but then “exquisite, charming, stunning, precise” gets like 91 points.

E.g.

2007 Shafer Hillside –

98 points – “Big and bold. Excellent wine from Shafer. Only will get better with time. Tannins still very much in place in this very structured wine. Truly enjoyable experience.”

2010 Barthod C-M Cras –

93 points – “Very tight and mineral, wonderfully perfumed and floral, great tension and acidity, very linear and precise, perfectly integrated oak, radiant, transparent, wonderful expression of terroir, very good length.”

93 points – “Beautiful elegant wine with sublime fruit and minerals. Quite rich even if its so elegant. Very long finish. Love it.”

I just find it amusing that judging by peoples’ descriptions there is basically NO level of elegance and balance that can get you the scores that “this wine punched me in the f*ck face with all that fruit man, wow!” can get you.

A very, very speculative musing:

a)most traditional Burgundy reviewers, IMO, tend to be a bit more restrained in their scores. Excepting the noted RP score on 1990 La Tache, which was a ripe vintage and at a point where Parker was building reputation still(and trumpeting a 100 point score still stood out from the crowd, even Suckling didn’t hand out oodles of them back then). Not to say that Allen Meadows and Stephen Tanzer don’t ever hand out perfect scores, but the hype of score inflation isn’t their MO.

b) a lot of the powerhouse wines have come to prominence in the era of big wines getting big scores by the glossy publication and using eyepopping scores to build circulation. Many time these wines were sold to consumers solely on point scores. “Oh yeah, it’s amazing juice! 98 POINTS!”, said the local wine shop geek about the Napa wine, before turning back to his computer to finish emailing his favorite dry Chenin Blanc producers to the somm hosting that night’s tasting group.
And a lot of wine drinkers were brought into buying and collecting, or were influenced by getting excited about 95 point bomber wines. I sold my 98 Beaucastel, the 92 and 94 Peter Michael Les Pavots, 94 Leonetti, etc. because my tastes changed. But I bought it because I thought 94-97 points was great(ugh, score inflation in my own post. I bought them because I thought 90-94 points was great…96 points was the holy ground of 1990 Krug Clos des Mesnil and damn few other wines.)

c) We believe what we read. We trust experts, and follow their lead. And a CT score generally says that the poster trusted someone enough to have plonked down significant dollars on a bottle. So the high scores on a “meh” review may possibly reflect a subconcious deflection of the faceless reader wondering to themselves “why did you buy this wine?” as they scan the review.

And by the same token the modest reviews of light bodied wines may be a way of preventing ever having to justify to a similar faceless reader why we gave 97 points to a wine that isn’t “a mouthful of flavor”. Or simply that we also understand that many of the lighter wines go in and out of phase and may be sublime one bottle, and distant the next bottle. A 91 point score leaves a margin for that, and weirdly it seems to me that 97 points doesn’t.

Additionally, it’s not like Burgundy needs Howard to throw a 98 score on any of the producers he champions here. Although, I am quite happy to have picked up a few of his preferences recently.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Mahler fanatics are the Robert Parkers of classical music, and second in annoyance only to Shostakovich fanatics.

I spent part of college in music school studying trumpet performance (classical focus) and I am now working in the wine industry. My favorite wines are those with finesse, elegance, subtlety, and freshness, yet being a brass player, of course I loved Mahler and Shostakovich…so I have mixed feelings here haha but you’re definitely making some sense. I’ve thought about such comparisons myself.

What, then, is one to make of Ligeti’s L’escalier du Diable?

Perhaps best to quote Jeremy Denk:

How to interpret eight fortes? I think maybe I should hurl my whole body at the piano as violently as possible and hope for the best. They would find my bloody corpse weeks later amid the moldy coffee cups, odiferous testament to my devotion to the composer’s intent. How would eight be different from seven? Both must be so searingly loud as to be painful, a distinction between degrees of agony: if seven fortes is like being disemboweled by a wolf, then eight is like being disemboweled by a bear.

I mean, for some Berserkers, Sine Qua Non might not be the worst comparison to being disemboweled by a bear.

I appreciated Thomas’ post on Mahler and Shostakovich, but have a lack of musical talent that makes me leery of speaking poorly of any major composers work. But it’s good to see your response to his post and this. Highly enjoyable reading.

[Sean_S_y_d_n_e_y]

Aside from any taste profiles, I think the correlation of score with price and is the main culprit. I know it’s not the Hillside Select, but that’s still Shafer and likely someone spent a decent amount for it, it so it must be at least a lower-to-mid 90s wine. Price paid = score.

I see that the “entry-level” 2013 Shafer (One Point Five) has a 92.5 avg. The Relentless has a 94 avg, and the Hillside Select has a 95. Up the ladder we go.

Marcus alluded to it as far as not wanting to look stupid; people associate price and label with quality, so even if it’s not a truly great wine, you don’t want to be the putz at the table - or on CT - who exposes yourself for the rube you may think you are by calling it just okay or worse.

[Vince_T]

I spent part of college in music school studying trumpet performance (classical focus) and I am now working in the wine industry. My favorite wines are those with finesse, elegance, subtlety, and freshness, yet being a brass player, of course I loved Mahler and Shostakovich…so I have mixed feelings here haha but you’re definitely making some sense. I’ve thought about such comparisons myself.

What, then, is one to make of Ligeti’s L’escalier du Diable?

Perhaps best to quote Jeremy Denk:

How to interpret eight fortes? I think maybe I should hurl my whole body at the piano as violently as possible and hope for the best. They would find my bloody corpse weeks later amid the moldy coffee cups, odiferous testament to my devotion to the composer’s intent. How would eight be different from seven? Both must be so searingly loud as to be painful, a distinction between degrees of agony: if seven fortes is like being disemboweled by a wolf, then eight is like being disemboweled by a bear.

I mean, for some Berserkers, Sine Qua Non might not be the worst comparison to being disemboweled by a bear.

I appreciated Thomas’ post on Mahler and Shostakovich, but have a lack of musical talent that makes me leery of speaking poorly of any major composers work. But it’s good to see your response to his post and this. Highly enjoyable reading.

Jokes aside, Ligeti’s Etudes are an indisputable masterpiece, and arguably the most important contribution to piano literature in the second half of the 20th century.

Check it out here:

Ligeti: Piano Etudes (Book Two) : XIII. L'escalier du diable

[Andy_Sc]

There are people who value huge body and boldness tremendously and much more than other things like complexity, elegance, acidity, etc., so you’ll see them give very high scores to wines that really exude those attributes. It also makes sense that these big, highly extracted wines are more likely to be consumed and scored by people who love big, highly extracted wines. Maybe they actually enjoy those big Napa wines more than a lot of people enjoy the Burgundies you’re looking at

Regardless, I don’t think it’s much of an issue for me on CT because I try to compare apples to apples – to me, the CT score general gives me an idea of how much fans of that type/style of wine enjoy that wine; I’m not trying to use the scores to see if a Burgundy is better than a Central Coast Syrah.

This is spot on. All that “Burgundy lovers just score lower”, or self-fulfilling prophecy stuff is just crap.

The best Burgs just get as high scores as the best wines from other regions. There are a lot of people who love bold wines and styles (and dislike Pinots). These people give really high scores to the best wines (may it be a Shafer HSS from a good vintage or a Chateau Margaux from a good vintage or a good vintage of SQN) just as the Burgundy lovers give high scores to the great vintages of all this great Burgundies (may it be DRC, CLB or Leroy).

As you said to compare the score of a Shafer HSS with a score of 1er Cru Burgundy makes little sense. Critics and CT are just helpful tools to determine which 1er Cru you should buy or which Napa Cab you should buy (if you like them) but gives little to no indication if you should preferably buy the 1er Cru over the Napa Cab or vice versa.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Far be it for me to argue with a professional musician, but would have thought that Tchaikovsky is far more Parkerized than the other two.

Which composerS are Gilmanized?

[Tomas_Costa]

Far be it for me to argue with a professional musician, but would have thought that Tchaikovsky is far more Parkerized than the other two.

Which composerS are Gilmanized?

Disclaimer: all of my posts on music are completely subjective, regardless of how much I try to separate those judgements from objective criteria.

Tchaikovsky was not a particularly great craftsman and his output is very inconsistent, but I do feel that he reached greatness on occasion. Part of the issue is that the repetitive phrasing he often employed fits like a glove in ballet, but not so much in purely instrumental music. I also find his work to be very valuable for the way he reapproached the German and Russian nationalist traditions, which were at odds.

Mahler was a phenomenal craftsman and first rate composer who employed those tools in the service of extraordinary self-indulgence, self-pitying and conceptual megalomania - in his symphonies. I find his traumatic obsession with the sounds of his childhood - the military music, the warped Viennese waltz, and so forth - particularly obtuse and solipsistic. In his song writing, where he is forced to restrain and condense, I find his music to be very enjoyable and well achieved, and there are certainly moments like those in his symphonies, as in the last movement of the 4th (his lightest one). Ultimately I greatly admire his tools but not so much what he produced with them.

Shostakovich suffers from the fact that his most performed pieces are often his worst - particularly the 5th symphony, which was deliberately dumbed down in order to appease Stalinist censorship and is now enjoyed unironically by overexcited music students and people who find it impressive when conductors do a cardio routine on stage. Although I’ve never met another musician who agreed with me, I have to say I much prefer Prokofiev, who wrote in the same period with a ‘bite’ and freshness I often (though not always) find lacking in Shostakovich.

Ultimately, as Ghandi famously quipped about Christians and Hayek about Keynesians, I find both composers’ devoted fans to be far less likeable than their idols.

[Howard_Cooper]

Additionally, it’s not like Burgundy needs Howard to throw a 98 score on any of the producers he champions here. Although, I am quite happy to have picked up a few of his preferences recently.

I don’t “champion” producers. I state what I like. Others can agree with me or disagree with me. Isn’t that what a wine discussion board is all about?

[Dennis_Borczon]

Aside from all the music contributions here…which is really great by the way, (quite fascinating)…a quote from the immortal Tony Bourdain captures it best. He once quipped about the average diner,

“Why does my food in a restaurant taste better than yours you cook at home? Butter. Don’t forget to mis en beurre!”

High concentration and extraction is the butter of winemaking.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Far be it for me to argue with a professional musician, but would have thought that Tchaikovsky is far more Parkerized than the other two.

Which composerS are Gilmanized?

Disclaimer: all of my posts on music are completely subjective, regardless of how much I try to separate those judgements from objective criteria.

Tchaikovsky was not a particularly great craftsman and his output is very inconsistent, but I do feel that he reached greatness on occasion. Part of the issue is that the repetitive phrasing he often employed fits like a glove in ballet, but not so much in purely instrumental music. I also find his work to be very valuable for the way he reapproached the German and Russian nationalist traditions, which were at odds.

Mahler was a phenomenal craftsman and first rate composer who employed those tools in the service of extraordinary self-indulgence, self-pitying and conceptual megalomania - in his symphonies. I find his traumatic obsession with the sounds of his childhood - the military music, the warped Viennese waltz, and so forth - particularly obtuse and solipsistic. In his song writing, where he is forced to restrain and condense, I find his music to be very enjoyable and well achieved, and there are certainly moments like those in his symphonies, as in the last movement of the 4th (his lightest one). Ultimately I greatly admire his tools but not so much what he produced with them.

Shostakovich suffers from the fact that his most performed pieces are often his worst - particularly the 5th symphony, which was deliberately dumbed down in order to appease Stalinist censorship and is now enjoyed unironically by overexcited music students and people who find it impressive when conductors do a cardio routine on stage. Although I’ve never met another musician who agreed with me, I have to say I much prefer Prokofiev, who wrote in the same period with a ‘bite’ and freshness I often (though not always) find lacking in Shostakovich.

Ultimately, as Ghandi famously quipped about Christians and Hayek about Keynesians, I find both composers’ devoted fans to be far less likeable than their idols.

Pity, does that mean we can’t be friends, as I am fond of Shostakovich, and love Tchaikovsky? His Sixth Symphony was the first record (yes record, I know it dates me) I ever bought. I also like Prokofiev; perhaps that brings us back to even, especially as I am no fan of Mahler, except to test speakers with the first few bars of his Fifth Symphony.

[Tomas_Costa]

Far be it for me to argue with a professional musician, but would have thought that Tchaikovsky is far more Parkerized than the other two.

Which composerS are Gilmanized?

Disclaimer: all of my posts on music are completely subjective, regardless of how much I try to separate those judgements from objective criteria.

Tchaikovsky was not a particularly great craftsman and his output is very inconsistent, but I do feel that he reached greatness on occasion. Part of the issue is that the repetitive phrasing he often employed fits like a glove in ballet, but not so much in purely instrumental music. I also find his work to be very valuable for the way he reapproached the German and Russian nationalist traditions, which were at odds.

Mahler was a phenomenal craftsman and first rate composer who employed those tools in the service of extraordinary self-indulgence, self-pitying and conceptual megalomania - in his symphonies. I find his traumatic obsession with the sounds of his childhood - the military music, the warped Viennese waltz, and so forth - particularly obtuse and solipsistic. In his song writing, where he is forced to restrain and condense, I find his music to be very enjoyable and well achieved, and there are certainly moments like those in his symphonies, as in the last movement of the 4th (his lightest one). Ultimately I greatly admire his tools but not so much what he produced with them.

Shostakovich suffers from the fact that his most performed pieces are often his worst - particularly the 5th symphony, which was deliberately dumbed down in order to appease Stalinist censorship and is now enjoyed unironically by overexcited music students and people who find it impressive when conductors do a cardio routine on stage. Although I’ve never met another musician who agreed with me, I have to say I much prefer Prokofiev, who wrote in the same period with a ‘bite’ and freshness I often (though not always) find lacking in Shostakovich.

Ultimately, as Ghandi famously quipped about Christians and Hayek about Keynesians, I find both composers’ devoted fans to be far less likeable than their idols.

Pity, does that mean we can’t be friends, as I am fond of Shostakovich, and love Tchaikovsky? His Sixth Symphony was the first record (yes record, I know it dates me) I ever bought. I also like Prokofiev; perhaps that brings us back to even, especially as I am no fan of Mahler, except to test speakers with the first few bars of his Fifth Symphony.

I should have mentioned that, as a professional musician, I am typically referring to colleagues rather than music loving laypeople. Some can be rather… extreme in their commitment. Shostakovich has a lot of great music and I enjoy it too - though I am biased, I find the first violin concerto to be a great piece, with terrific sense of both drama and architecture. I also love Tchaikovsky’s 6th symphony and I feel it’s his best symphonic work. It helps that it has a great backstory (regardless of whether it’s real or not).

Everyone on WB is a friend or potential one to me.

[Vince_T]

Far be it for me to argue with a professional musician, but would have thought that Tchaikovsky is far more Parkerized than the other two.

Which composerS are Gilmanized?

Disclaimer: all of my posts on music are completely subjective, regardless of how much I try to separate those judgements from objective criteria.

Tchaikovsky was not a particularly great craftsman and his output is very inconsistent, but I do feel that he reached greatness on occasion. Part of the issue is that the repetitive phrasing he often employed fits like a glove in ballet, but not so much in purely instrumental music. I also find his work to be very valuable for the way he reapproached the German and Russian nationalist traditions, which were at odds.

Mahler was a phenomenal craftsman and first rate composer who employed those tools in the service of extraordinary self-indulgence, self-pitying and conceptual megalomania - in his symphonies. I find his traumatic obsession with the sounds of his childhood - the military music, the warped Viennese waltz, and so forth - particularly obtuse and solipsistic. In his song writing, where he is forced to restrain and condense, I find his music to be very enjoyable and well achieved, and there are certainly moments like those in his symphonies, as in the last movement of the 4th (his lightest one). Ultimately I greatly admire his tools but not so much what he produced with them.

Shostakovich suffers from the fact that his most performed pieces are often his worst - particularly the 5th symphony, which was deliberately dumbed down in order to appease Stalinist censorship and is now enjoyed unironically by overexcited music students and people who find it impressive when conductors do a cardio routine on stage. Although I’ve never met another musician who agreed with me, I have to say I much prefer Prokofiev, who wrote in the same period with a ‘bite’ and freshness I often (though not always) find lacking in Shostakovich.

Ultimately, as Ghandi famously quipped about Christians and Hayek about Keynesians, I find both composers’ devoted fans to be far less likeable than their idols.

Pity, does that mean we can’t be friends, as I am fond of Shostakovich, and love Tchaikovsky? His Sixth Symphony was the first record (yes record, I know it dates me) I ever bought. I also like Prokofiev; perhaps that brings us back to even, especially as I am no fan of Mahler, except to test speakers with the first few bars of his Fifth Symphony.

I think a more apt comparison is of composers to wine regions. You can have a more austere, “classical” reading of Mahler and you can a lush over the top reading of Mahler. Mahler might be Zinfandel, with tendencies towards lushness and grandiosity. Shostakovich might also Have huge moments, but also greatness in precision and clarity as well - listen to his A-major fugue and it’s strikingly pure and brilliant. Maybe Shostakovich is like the Cabernet franc grape, which can have some bell pepper notes that turns a wide swath of the population off.

Perhaps a better comparison would be to performers who play this music. Among pianists (disclaimer, not a musician, just a fan):

Lang Lang would be the Parkerized wine par excellence. All technique and brilliance, superficial emotion, zero soul, a failure of musicality. An obliteration of the terroir of the music underneath. But many less musically attuned fans love him and he makes big $$$.

Rudolph Serkin and Leon Fleisher would be BAMA and Magdelaine - old-school to the max, prioritizing a view of the soul of the music, delivering power where it works, softness and finesse elsewhere. maybe afflicted by a few wrong notes (hint of funk or green or whatever), but undeniably great by anyone who is able to overlook a few small flaws in their quest to understand the underlying material.

Martha Argerich would be the Latour (or DRC) of pianists. Iron fist in a velvet glove. Imperious, brilliant, she is among the biggest and most powerful of all the pianists, but simultaneously more elegant and caressing than a feather. A few memorable occasions where she is not on top of her game, but often you think, can it possibly get any more amazing than that??

Mitsuko Uchida - maybe Rayas? Transparent soul-crushing beauty. Plenty of power but you never hear it - her mastery is such that you only hear the essence of Mozart or Schubert channeled through her hands.

Juilliard might be the Michel Rolland of pianists, churning out the Lang Lang clones - all technique and flash, and many of them survive on performances of the biggest bombastic staples (Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov piano concertos) that and appeal to the masses but don’t go on to develop more of a soul and make more meaningful music.

If Julliard is Rolland, then perhaps Marlboro would be the John Gilman school? Founded by Rudolph Serkin and now run by Mitsuko Uchida and Jonathan Biss, it has Produced a wide range of pianists (and other instrumentalists) that prioritize musicality (and fraternite) over technique. Not a perfect comparison because John Gilman isn’t “training” anyone, but they share a similar set of values.

(All of this would be gross generalization and metaphor, but it’s fun!)

[Vince_T]

Also, I’ve only ever come across one wine that has an Average score of 100 with more than 5 reviews… with those reviews coming from WB-ers with respected Burgundy palates.

The 100-point descriptors from our Esteemed WBers include “full throttle”, “fully dialed up”, “unbelievably intense”. Any guesses as to which wine that would be?

2010 Dönnhoff Niederhäuser Hermannshöhle Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese,...

[Tomas_Costa]

Disclaimer: all of my posts on music are completely subjective, regardless of how much I try to separate those judgements from objective criteria.

Tchaikovsky was not a particularly great craftsman and his output is very inconsistent, but I do feel that he reached greatness on occasion. Part of the issue is that the repetitive phrasing he often employed fits like a glove in ballet, but not so much in purely instrumental music. I also find his work to be very valuable for the way he reapproached the German and Russian nationalist traditions, which were at odds.

Mahler was a phenomenal craftsman and first rate composer who employed those tools in the service of extraordinary self-indulgence, self-pitying and conceptual megalomania - in his symphonies. I find his traumatic obsession with the sounds of his childhood - the military music, the warped Viennese waltz, and so forth - particularly obtuse and solipsistic. In his song writing, where he is forced to restrain and condense, I find his music to be very enjoyable and well achieved, and there are certainly moments like those in his symphonies, as in the last movement of the 4th (his lightest one). Ultimately I greatly admire his tools but not so much what he produced with them.

Shostakovich suffers from the fact that his most performed pieces are often his worst - particularly the 5th symphony, which was deliberately dumbed down in order to appease Stalinist censorship and is now enjoyed unironically by overexcited music students and people who find it impressive when conductors do a cardio routine on stage. Although I’ve never met another musician who agreed with me, I have to say I much prefer Prokofiev, who wrote in the same period with a ‘bite’ and freshness I often (though not always) find lacking in Shostakovich.

Ultimately, as Ghandi famously quipped about Christians and Hayek about Keynesians, I find both composers’ devoted fans to be far less likeable than their idols.

Pity, does that mean we can’t be friends, as I am fond of Shostakovich, and love Tchaikovsky? His Sixth Symphony was the first record (yes record, I know it dates me) I ever bought. I also like Prokofiev; perhaps that brings us back to even, especially as I am no fan of Mahler, except to test speakers with the first few bars of his Fifth Symphony.

I think a more apt comparison is of composers to wine regions. You can have a more austere, “classical” reading of Mahler and you can a lush over the top reading of Mahler. Mahler might be Zinfandel, with tendencies towards lushness and grandiosity. Shostakovich might also Have huge moments, but also greatness in precision and clarity as well - listen to his A-major fugue and it’s strikingly pure and brilliant. Maybe Shostakovich is like the Cabernet franc grape, which can have some bell pepper notes that turns a wide swath of the population off.

Perhaps a better comparison would be to performers who play this music. Among pianists (disclaimer, not a musician, just a fan):

Lang Lang would be the Parkerized wine par excellence. All technique and brilliance, superficial emotion, zero soul, a failure of musicality. An on liberation of the terroir of the music underneath. But many less musically attuned fans love him and he makes big $$$.

Rudolph Serkin and Leon Fleisher would be BAMA and Magdelaine - old-school to the max, prioritizing a view of the soul of the music, delivering power where it works, softness and finesse elsewhere. maybe afflicted by a few wrong notes (hint of funk or green or whatever), but undeniably great by anyone who is able to overlook a few small flaws in their quest to understand the underlying material.

Martha Argerich would be the Latour (or DRC) of pianists. Iron fist in a velvet glove. Imperious, brilliant, she can be amongst the biggest and most powerful of all the pianists, but simultaneously more elegant and caressing than a feather. A few memorable occasions where she is not on top of her game, but often you think, can it possibly get any more amazing than that??

Mitsuko Uchida - maybe Rayas? Transparent soul-crushing beauty. Plenty of power but you never hear it - her mastery is such that you only hear the essence of Mozart or Schubert channeled through her hands.

Juilliard might be the Michel Rolland of pianists, churning out the Lang Lang clones - all technique and flash, and many of them survive on performances of the biggest bombastic staples (Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov piano concertos) that and appeal to the masses but don’t go on to develop more of a soul and make more meaningful music.

If Julliard is Rolland, then perhaps Marlboro would be the John Gilman school? Founded by Rudolph Serkin and now run by Mitsuko Uchida and Jonathan Biss, it has Produced a wide range of pianists (and other instrumentalists) that prioritize musicality (and fraternite) over technique. Not a perfect comparison because John Gilman isn’t “training” anyone, but they share a similar set of values.

(All of this would be gross generalization and metaphor, but it’s fun!)

What a spectacular post. I’m pretty much in full agreement, and wondering where old school creatives like Rosenthal or Cortot would fit (two of my greatest musical idols). For DRC I might have chosen Arcadi Volodos as well - pretty supernatural control of the instrument, with the thoughtful musicality to boot (just listen to his Schubert sonatas).

[Gabe_Berk]

Wait. This is something new? Been going on for 15+ years!

I just read two big scores notes by Galloni, and he was fixated on “unctuousness”. Big jammy yummy low acid new oak crap. I had one of them tonight and moved on.

LOL. Definitely wasn’t claiming it was something new, more like a universal human tendency based on palate cravings for sugar and fat.

Human’s are indeed suckers for sugar and fat. Critics “size bonus” is a real thing…

[Robert_Sand]

I think that many scores generally are too high, on CT as well as from writers.
A score of 92 or above is the exception not the rule, and 95+ is rare , or should be …

[JLee]

I don’t think it’s fair to poo poo on lovers of a certain style.

Burgundy scores are that way because they’re extremely hierarchical. Bertheau Charmes is rarely going to be rated higher, if ever, than its amoureuses, which is rarely, if ever, going to be rated than Roumier’s, and so on to down the vineyard/producer combinations.

In other words Bertheau Charmes is 93 points because there needs to be room to rate the rest of the burgundy hierarchy higher. How many village wines do you see rated 93?