The restaurant has been open for over two years now. How do you feel your menu has evolved in that time? I see some dishes that seem to have stayed. Have they become your classics? Are there dishes that seem to represent Blue Hill to you to the extent they are sacrosanct or are there dishes that you'd prefer to stop cooking, but are demanded by loyal diners? How has Michael's arrival in the kitchen changed the scope of the menu offerings. I know he's responsible for some of the dishes I've had, but I haven't seen an abrupt shift the general cuisine.
Do you think the tasting menu represents your food better than the a la carte menu or is it a question of the diner's mood? Do you find that diners gravitate towards or away from the tasting menu as they become regulars? Are these fair questions?
I know that sometimes, if a restaurant comes highly recommended, I'll choose the tasting menu to get a broader picture of what the kitchen can do, but at other times I might wait to order the, usually more expensive, tasting menu until I've come to respect the kitchen more. So maybe it's not a fair question, but I can ask if you tend to regard the diner who orders the tasting menu in a different light that the one who orders a la carte.
Please feel free to answer as selectively as you wish or just repond to the general subject matter.
Robert Buxbaum
WorldTable Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.
My mailbox is full. You may contact me via
worldtable.com.