For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
Francisco).
--
To email me, remove the invalid word in my address and change net to com.

in article , larkin1734 at
wrote on 2/14/05 1:25 PM:

> For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
> guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
> Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
> Francisco).


I was out of town for the night. Do you happen to know whether this was a
new interview or a re-broadcast of the one from a year or so ago???
Usually, when they are doing are-broadcast, they show the original date on
the screen at least at the beginning. If it's new I'd really like to track
it down.

"Midlife" > wrote in message
...
> in article , larkin1734 at
> wrote on 2/14/05 1:25 PM:
>
>> For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
>> guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
>> Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
>> Francisco).
>
>
> I was out of town for the night. Do you happen to know whether this was a
> new interview or a re-broadcast of the one from a year or so ago???
> Usually, when they are doing are-broadcast, they show the original date on
> the screen at least at the beginning. If it's new I'd really like to track
> it down.

It seemed pretty new to me. He referred to the movie "Sideways", and I
don't thinkthat was out a year ago.

Interesting interview. I might burn off a copy.

Tom S

Midlife wrote:
> in article , larkin1734 at
> wrote on 2/14/05 1:25 PM:
>
>
>>For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
>>guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
>>Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
>>Francisco).
>
>
>
> I was out of town for the night. Do you happen to know whether this was a
> new interview or a re-broadcast of the one from a year or so ago???
> Usually, when they are doing are-broadcast, they show the original date on
> the screen at least at the beginning. If it's new I'd really like to track
> it down.
>
>
New show. RP talked about the movie Sideways, his schedule for the rest
of 2005, Constellation's purchase of Mondavi, and a bunch of other
things I can't recall now. I'd send you a copy if I'd had the foresight
to tape it. Tapes and/or transcripts are probably available from PBS.

--
To email me, remove the invalid word in my address and change net to com.

Midlife wrote:
> in article , larkin1734 at
> wrote on 2/14/05 1:25 PM:
>
>
>>For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
>>guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
>>Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
>>Francisco).
>
>
>
> I was out of town for the night. Do you happen to know whether this was a
> new interview or a re-broadcast of the one from a year or so ago???
> Usually, when they are doing are-broadcast, they show the original date on
> the screen at least at the beginning. If it's new I'd really like to track
> it down.
>
>
New show. RP talked about the movie Sideways, his schedule for the rest
of 2005, Constellation's purchase of Mondavi, and a bunch of other
things I can't recall now. I'd send you a copy if I'd had the foresight
to tape it. Tapes and/or transcripts are probably available from PBS.

--
To email me, remove the invalid word in my address and change net to com.

This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines with
his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an interviewer)
and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
annoying.

This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines with
his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an interviewer)
and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
annoying.

I went to charlierose.com and he does have tapes and transcipts but only on
shows up to 2/11/2005. Therefore they must have a few days of delay.

I missed the show and want to see or read.

Any other highlights anyone want to share from interview?


"larkin1734" > wrote in message
...
> Midlife wrote:
>> in article , larkin1734 at
>> wrote on 2/14/05 1:25 PM:
>>
>>
>>>For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
>>>guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
>>>Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
>>>Francisco).
>>
>>
>>
>> I was out of town for the night. Do you happen to know whether this was
>> a
>> new interview or a re-broadcast of the one from a year or so ago???
>> Usually, when they are doing are-broadcast, they show the original date
>> on
>> the screen at least at the beginning. If it's new I'd really like to
>> track
>> it down.
>>
>>
> New show. RP talked about the movie Sideways, his schedule for the rest
> of 2005, Constellation's purchase of Mondavi, and a bunch of other things
> I can't recall now. I'd send you a copy if I'd had the foresight to tape
> it. Tapes and/or transcripts are probably available from PBS.
>
> --
> To email me, remove the invalid word in my address and change net to com.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:24:10 GMT, "dick neidich" > said:

] I went to charlierose.com and he does have tapes and transcipts but only on
] shows up to 2/11/2005. Therefore they must have a few days of delay.
]
] I missed the show and want to see or read.
]
] Any other highlights anyone want to share from interview?
]

Doesn't anyone in the US have TIVO??? (God's gift to television.)

If so, how about banging it off to DVD?

-E



--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:24:10 GMT, "dick neidich" > said:

] I went to charlierose.com and he does have tapes and transcipts but only on
] shows up to 2/11/2005. Therefore they must have a few days of delay.
]
] I missed the show and want to see or read.
]
] Any other highlights anyone want to share from interview?
]

Doesn't anyone in the US have TIVO??? (God's gift to television.)

If so, how about banging it off to DVD?

-E



--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

Bi!! wrote:
> This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines with
> his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
> thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an interviewer)
> and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
> annoying.

Apparently Parker and Rose are close buddies and have traveled together
on tasting trips. Rose was very careful to elicit from Parker his credo of
accepting nothing in the form of a gift or bribe that could tarnish his
reputation. I thought overall it was a great program because it allowed
Parker to lay out all his philosophy of wine. He started out by saying he
was a Francophile but then talked about the democratic nature of ignoring
the pedigree of the wine and rating them on their merits. He also talked
numerous times about young people in the wine industry trying to make great
wines and how he liked to recognize them with good ratings to help them get
going. On the negative side, Charlie Rose was just a little to buddy buddy
at times and detracted from what Parker was saying. Parker praised his two
minions and said between the three of them they knew more about wine than
the rest of the world combined. Leading into the new wine movie about
globalization of the industry, the Australian "industrialized wine business"
certainly did take a beating. I don't think he had one good word about Oz
wine. He also seemed to have a lot of bad words about Italian wines. There
was no mention of German or Austrian wines that I heard.
Bill

Bi!! wrote:
> This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines with
> his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
> thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an interviewer)
> and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
> annoying.

Apparently Parker and Rose are close buddies and have traveled together
on tasting trips. Rose was very careful to elicit from Parker his credo of
accepting nothing in the form of a gift or bribe that could tarnish his
reputation. I thought overall it was a great program because it allowed
Parker to lay out all his philosophy of wine. He started out by saying he
was a Francophile but then talked about the democratic nature of ignoring
the pedigree of the wine and rating them on their merits. He also talked
numerous times about young people in the wine industry trying to make great
wines and how he liked to recognize them with good ratings to help them get
going. On the negative side, Charlie Rose was just a little to buddy buddy
at times and detracted from what Parker was saying. Parker praised his two
minions and said between the three of them they knew more about wine than
the rest of the world combined. Leading into the new wine movie about
globalization of the industry, the Australian "industrialized wine business"
certainly did take a beating. I don't think he had one good word about Oz
wine. He also seemed to have a lot of bad words about Italian wines. There
was no mention of German or Austrian wines that I heard.
Bill

Bi!! wrote:

> This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines with
> his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
> thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an interviewer)
> and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
> annoying.
>


Seems to be an increasing trend, bashing Australian wine and wine
production / techniques etc.

Has been going on for some time. In fact coincidently I was watching
that Jancis Robinson[?]'s Wine Course, from 1996 I think it was, and
they weren't really bashing Australia, but saying how everything is all
science.

They did however say a lot of growers / producers etc were going back to
old world techniques.

Bare in mind the show was circa 1996.

Bill Loftin wrote:

> Bi!! wrote:
>
>> This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines with
>> his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
>> thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an interviewer)
>> and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
>> annoying.
>
>
> Apparently Parker and Rose are close buddies and have traveled together
> on tasting trips. Rose was very careful to elicit from Parker his credo of
> accepting nothing in the form of a gift or bribe that could tarnish his
> reputation. I thought overall it was a great program because it allowed
> Parker to lay out all his philosophy of wine. He started out by saying he
> was a Francophile but then talked about the democratic nature of ignoring
> the pedigree of the wine and rating them on their merits. He also talked
> numerous times about young people in the wine industry trying to make great
> wines and how he liked to recognize them with good ratings to help them get
> going. On the negative side, Charlie Rose was just a little to buddy buddy
> at times and detracted from what Parker was saying. Parker praised his two
> minions and said between the three of them they knew more about wine than
> the rest of the world combined. Leading into the new wine movie about
> globalization of the industry, the Australian "industrialized wine
> business"
> certainly did take a beating. I don't think he had one good word about Oz
> wine. He also seemed to have a lot of bad words about Italian wines. There
> was no mention of German or Austrian wines that I heard.
> Bill


I'm starting to wonder if Robert Parker having the power to make and
break producers, if not regions or even countries is a bad thing.

This of course follows on from the old chestnut of making wines
specifically just for tastings, leading to fruit bombs with the subtely
of an elephant in flares.

For me personally Parker does not appear to have an awful lot of sway
here in Oz for the average person, in fact hardly anyone here has heard
of him barring of course wine groupies and industry types. We are
relatively insulated from him here anyway. Overseas it is probably quite
a different story.


On the other hand, the great masses of everyman friendly wine Australia
produces is probably a threat to a lot of wine buffs who feel it is
sacrilige even to convert non-wine drinkers using highly boring but
friendly quaffers.

We do also produce some quite excellent premium wines most people would
agree. I think both can live quite nicely next to each other.


What new wine drinker will pay 100's of dollars for a wine they've never
had, and equally what wine buff will drink say a Yellowtail Shiraz as a
"special" wine?

Mat wrote:
> Bill Loftin wrote:
>
> > Bi!! wrote:
> >
> >> This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines
with
> >> his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
> >> thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an
interviewer)
> >> and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
> >> annoying.
> >
> >
> > Apparently Parker and Rose are close buddies and have traveled
together
> > on tasting trips. Rose was very careful to elicit from Parker his
credo of
> > accepting nothing in the form of a gift or bribe that could tarnish
his
> > reputation. I thought overall it was a great program because it
allowed
> > Parker to lay out all his philosophy of wine. He started out by
saying he
> > was a Francophile but then talked about the democratic nature of
ignoring
> > the pedigree of the wine and rating them on their merits. He also
talked
> > numerous times about young people in the wine industry trying to
make great
> > wines and how he liked to recognize them with good ratings to help
them get
> > going. On the negative side, Charlie Rose was just a little to
buddy buddy
> > at times and detracted from what Parker was saying. Parker praised
his two
> > minions and said between the three of them they knew more about
wine than
> > the rest of the world combined. Leading into the new wine movie
about
> > globalization of the industry, the Australian "industrialized wine
> > business"
> > certainly did take a beating. I don't think he had one good word
about Oz
> > wine. He also seemed to have a lot of bad words about Italian
wines. There
> > was no mention of German or Austrian wines that I heard.
> > Bill
>
>
> I'm starting to wonder if Robert Parker having the power to make and
> break producers, if not regions or even countries is a bad thing.
>
> This of course follows on from the old chestnut of making wines
> specifically just for tastings, leading to fruit bombs with the
subtely
> of an elephant in flares.
>
> For me personally Parker does not appear to have an awful lot of sway

> here in Oz for the average person, in fact hardly anyone here has
heard
> of him barring of course wine groupies and industry types. We are
> relatively insulated from him here anyway. Overseas it is probably
quite
> a different story.
>
>
> On the other hand, the great masses of everyman friendly wine
Australia
> produces is probably a threat to a lot of wine buffs who feel it is
> sacrilige even to convert non-wine drinkers using highly boring but
> friendly quaffers.
>
> We do also produce some quite excellent premium wines most people
would
> agree. I think both can live quite nicely next to each other.
>
>
> What new wine drinker will pay 100's of dollars for a wine they've
never
> had, and equally what wine buff will drink say a Yellowtail Shiraz as
a
> "special" wine?

Maybe I didn't pay close enough attention, but the only time I heard
Parker say anything demeaning about Oz wine was when he mentioned that
he had a friend in Haut Brion who tends to look down his nose at ALL
new world wine, and he couldn't understand why Parker was giving high
ratings to some of those wines.

Dan-O

Mat wrote:
> Bill Loftin wrote:
>
> > Bi!! wrote:
> >
> >> This was a new show. I thought he was a bit harsh on Aussie wines
with
> >> his comments regarding the mechanization of the industry there. I
> >> thought that Charlie Rose was a bit patronizing (for an
interviewer)
> >> and stepped all over Parker while he was talking which was a bit
> >> annoying.
> >
> >
> > Apparently Parker and Rose are close buddies and have traveled
together
> > on tasting trips. Rose was very careful to elicit from Parker his
credo of
> > accepting nothing in the form of a gift or bribe that could tarnish
his
> > reputation. I thought overall it was a great program because it
allowed
> > Parker to lay out all his philosophy of wine. He started out by
saying he
> > was a Francophile but then talked about the democratic nature of
ignoring
> > the pedigree of the wine and rating them on their merits. He also
talked
> > numerous times about young people in the wine industry trying to
make great
> > wines and how he liked to recognize them with good ratings to help
them get
> > going. On the negative side, Charlie Rose was just a little to
buddy buddy
> > at times and detracted from what Parker was saying. Parker praised
his two
> > minions and said between the three of them they knew more about
wine than
> > the rest of the world combined. Leading into the new wine movie
about
> > globalization of the industry, the Australian "industrialized wine
> > business"
> > certainly did take a beating. I don't think he had one good word
about Oz
> > wine. He also seemed to have a lot of bad words about Italian
wines. There
> > was no mention of German or Austrian wines that I heard.
> > Bill
>
>
> I'm starting to wonder if Robert Parker having the power to make and
> break producers, if not regions or even countries is a bad thing.
>
> This of course follows on from the old chestnut of making wines
> specifically just for tastings, leading to fruit bombs with the
subtely
> of an elephant in flares.
>
> For me personally Parker does not appear to have an awful lot of sway

> here in Oz for the average person, in fact hardly anyone here has
heard
> of him barring of course wine groupies and industry types. We are
> relatively insulated from him here anyway. Overseas it is probably
quite
> a different story.
>
>
> On the other hand, the great masses of everyman friendly wine
Australia
> produces is probably a threat to a lot of wine buffs who feel it is
> sacrilige even to convert non-wine drinkers using highly boring but
> friendly quaffers.
>
> We do also produce some quite excellent premium wines most people
would
> agree. I think both can live quite nicely next to each other.
>
>
> What new wine drinker will pay 100's of dollars for a wine they've
never
> had, and equally what wine buff will drink say a Yellowtail Shiraz as
a
> "special" wine?

Maybe I didn't pay close enough attention, but the only time I heard
Parker say anything demeaning about Oz wine was when he mentioned that
he had a friend in Haut Brion who tends to look down his nose at ALL
new world wine, and he couldn't understand why Parker was giving high
ratings to some of those wines.

Dan-O

dick neidich wrote:
> I went to charlierose.com and he does have tapes and transcipts but only on
> shows up to 2/11/2005. Therefore they must have a few days of delay.
>
> I missed the show and want to see or read.
>
> Any other highlights anyone want to share from interview?
>
>
> "larkin1734" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Midlife wrote:
>>
>>>in article , larkin1734 at
wrote on 2/14/05 1:25 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For those who get PBS (American public television), Robert Parker is a
>>>>guest on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local listings for exact time.
>>>>Some stations rerun the show the next day as well (e.g. KQED in San
>>>>Francisco).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I was out of town for the night. Do you happen to know whether this was
>>>a
>>>new interview or a re-broadcast of the one from a year or so ago???
>>>Usually, when they are doing are-broadcast, they show the original date
>>>on
>>>the screen at least at the beginning. If it's new I'd really like to
>>>track
>>>it down.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>New show. RP talked about the movie Sideways, his schedule for the rest
>>of 2005, Constellation's purchase of Mondavi, and a bunch of other things
>>I can't recall now. I'd send you a copy if I'd had the foresight to tape
>>it. Tapes and/or transcripts are probably available from PBS.
>>
>>--
>>To email me, remove the invalid word in my address and change net to com.
>
>
>

Dick,

It's on the website now:
<http://www.charlierose.com/shop/showTapesbyguest.asp?intProdID=14371>
--
To email me, remove the invalid word in my address and change net to com.

"larkin1734" > wrote in message
...
> Dick,
>
> It's on the website now:
> <http://www.charlierose.com/shop/showTapesbyguest.asp?intProdID=14371>

$30 for a dub of that show? Ridiculous! I can buy a couple of movies for
that.

Tom S

"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
. ..
> Doesn't anyone in the US have TIVO??? (God's gift to television.)
>
> If so, how about banging it off to DVD?

I can probably do that from my DVD-RAM deck. It'd be nice to do it in VCD
format though. It's only a ½ hour or so, and the video quality doesn't need
to be hi-rez.

Tom S

"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
. ..
> Doesn't anyone in the US have TIVO??? (God's gift to television.)
>
> If so, how about banging it off to DVD?

I can probably do that from my DVD-RAM deck. It'd be nice to do it in VCD
format though. It's only a ½ hour or so, and the video quality doesn't need
to be hi-rez.

Tom S