762 replies to this topic

[ulterior epicure]

in the latest entry in his blog, Bruni notes (specifically with reference to Uovo) that when he has a crappy meal at a small not-ambitious restaurant, he deliberately chooses not to review it....as a sort of beneficience.

... or, one might see it as journalistic responsibility. After all, we all realize that the Restaurant Critic of the NY Times has the ability to make or break a restaurant/chef in a very short amount of time. Now, I don't know anything about Uovo (i.e. its following), nor have I listened to the said podcast. Just a thought.

u.e.

[Noodlebot]

in the latest entry in his blog, Bruni notes (specifically with reference to Uovo) that when he has a crappy meal at a small not-ambitious restaurant, he deliberately chooses not to review it....as a sort of beneficience.

That's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but I thought that the pot-shots at the now-defunct Uovo were really unfair.

[Sneakeater]

Well, since some Uovo fan (not management) took it upon himself to publicly blame Bruni for the restaurant's demise because he didn't review it . . . .

Edited by Sneakeater, 16 October 2006 - 08:00 AM.

[ulterior epicure]

OK, clearly, I need to do some reading-up on Uovo... and its closing... *sheepish*

[oakapple]

in the latest entry in his blog, Bruni notes (specifically with reference to Uovo) that when he has a crappy meal at a small not-ambitious restaurant, he deliberately chooses not to review it....as a sort of beneficience.

He does say that, but I wouldn't call it "benificence" (i.e., an act of kindness or charity). He is simply allocating a scarce resource — reviewing slots — where he can provide the most useful information to the reading public. As he noted in another blog post, it usually doesn't doesn't make journalistic sense to call attention to a minor restaurant for the purpose of telling people to avoid it.

[Noodlebot]

Well, since some Uovo fan (not management) took it upon himself to publicly blame Bruni for the restaurant's demise because he didn't review it . . . .

Right. I thought it was particularly unfair given that Bruni admitted that he'd heard the fan's comment through hearsay: "A recent comment that a reader posted raised the worthy subject of attention given big versus small restaurants, and said that the restaurant Uovo, on its website, partially blamed its closing on such a lack of attention. I hadn’t seen that website; I’ll take the reader’s word for it."

[oakapple]

Well, since some Uovo fan (not management) took it upon himself to publicly blame Bruni for the restaurant's demise because he didn't review it . . . .

Right. I thought it was particularly unfair given that Bruni admitted that he'd heard the fan's comment through hearsay: "A recent comment that a reader posted raised the worthy subject of attention given big versus small restaurants, and said that the restaurant Uovo, on its website, partially blamed its closing on such a lack of attention. I hadn’t seen that website; I’ll take the reader’s word for it."

Bruni seems to be saying that he gets a lot of questions similar to this one, and people don't seem to realize that he visits many more restaurants than he writes about. As is often the case, he used the Uovo example to make a broader point.

[Sneakeater]

It seems to me to be not unfair for Bruni to give a factual response when people go around villifying him. (Remember, the exact criticism [which I'm not sure I believe Bruni doesn't know the details of] was that Bruni, who reviews just about every megapex but not Uovo, can't find a restaurant without a PR release. Was his response to that really unfair?)

[Sneakeater]

From what I read on Eater, Julia Moskin has come up with a review subject so pointless that it makes any disputes about Da Silvano v. Red Cat moot.

[oakapple]

From what I read on Eater, Julia Moskin has come up with a review subject so  pointless that it makes any disputes about Da Silvano v. Red Cat moot.

Yes, according to Eater, Moskin will review the Morgan Dining Room tomorrow, a restaurant that serves dinner only Fridays from 5-9 p.m. (they are open other days for lunch).

Edited by oakapple, 18 October 2006 - 07:32 AM.

[Nathan]

well...Bruni isn't opposed to avant garde cuisine...at least if it's Italian anyway:

http://dinersjournal...?p=139#more-139

[Pan]

Spicy & Tasty gets two stars:

[...]Spicy & Tasty plays lavishly with this fire, which blazed in a riveting dish called shredded lamb in fresh hot pepper. On top of thin slices of lamb and a tangle of herbs and vegetables were swaths of a four-alarm paste made from dried chili flakes. The peppercorns also entered the mix — you could feel them on your lips — and at the bottom of the wide, deep bowl, red chili oil glistened.[...]

But Spicy & Tasty does justice to both sides of the ampersand, providing pleasures away from the heat. The bounciness of the dried bean curd was irresistible, and it exemplified an attentiveness to texture that also distinguished creamy tofu with minced pork and a dish of scallion and egg fried rice whose fluffiness, like its pale green color, was a revelation.[...]

Read the rest of the article:

Where Playing with Fire is not Taboo

Before many of you jump on Bruni for this review, saying he's crazy or misguided or foolish or something, let me be the first to say that he's right: Spicy & Tasty is a great restaurant that deserves two stars. The prices are cheap, but the food is consistently wonderful. I've eaten there over 40 times, I figure, and never once have I had a dish that wasn't delicious. Not one. I can't think of any other restaurant I've eaten at so many times that I can make that statement about. Furthermore, the ground floor of the restaurant actually has quite classy and presumably expensive decor. This is a wonderful restaurant serving Sichuan-style cuisine that I could send my homesick student from Chengdu to and have her come back to me thanking me and telling me that the food was just like the food from her home town, it's got a long, varied menu, and it has classy decor and good service (though, as Bruni accurately indicates, they speak a limited amount of English, and a Chinese-speaker among your group is definitely helpful, though not essential). What's not two-star about that? Purely the price? Too cheap for you? The lack of a wine list? Please!

[oakapple]

I must admit my thinking has somewhat evolved on this topic, and I now think that in principle there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a place like Sripraphai or Spicy & Tasty being awarded two stars. I have never dined at either one, so I am talking about a principle, and not whether these two actual restaurants have been correctly rated.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure that, in principle, there's anything wrong with giving them ten stars. The issue isn't principle, it's the comprehensibility of the system. If the Times wants to define the two-star category to include dives that serve excellent food, more power to them. The problem arises when people expect -- based on long experience -- two stars from the Times to mean one thing but then learn that it means something else.

[rich]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving places like ST and SRI two stars, three stars or four stars. The problem arises because the system is antiquated.

The NY Times can't (I that's the word I choose to use in this instance) give The Modern and ST two stars without adding something further. It must, as many leading papers in this country already do, split its rating and award different stars for ambiance, service, wine list - or at least one of those categories.

The fact that the Times has chosen to ignore the changes within the restaurant industry over the last 45 years, gives more ammunition to its critics who say the Old Gray Lady has become nothing more than old, indifferent and a second-class newspaper.

They should sell the Boston Globe - that paper is credible, it doesn't fit in with their current philosophy.

Edited by rich, 29 November 2006 - 07:37 AM.

[Fat Guy]

I don't think the system is antiquated as much as incomplete. Assuming we're going to have a star system, the way to make it more complete is to limit its scope to the type of restaurant it was intended for: full-service places that meet basic standards of starred restaurants. There's this other thing, "$25 and Under," for places like ST and SRI -- use it. And at this point, there's also a need for a middle category -- a third weekly review (perhaps replacing the waste-of-space "Diner's Journal") -- because $25 and Under should really be for cheap eats, and there should be something for places that are not cheap eats but are too modestly priced to offer star amenities and also for places like steakhouses that don't offer enough interest to sustain full-on star reviews.

[Nathan]

I completely disagree.

the food at Sriphithai (and from people that I trust -- Spicy and Tasty) is easily three star quality -- imo. then you knock them down two stars for ambience, service and no wine list and then raise them one for price, ending at two stars.

it's perfectly logical and coherent within the Times system as it stands. And Bruni wasn't the first one to do this. and Japanese is not the only Asian cuisine that can merit more than a star.

Edited by Nathan, 29 November 2006 - 09:32 AM.

[ulterior epicure]

I don't think the system is antiquated as much as incomplete. Assuming we're going to have a star system, the way to make it more complete is to limit its scope to the type of restaurant it was intended for: full-service places that meet basic standards of starred restaurants. There's this other thing, "$25 and Under," for places like ST and SRI -- use it. And at this point, there's also a need for a middle category -- a third weekly review (perhaps replacing the waste-of-space "Diner's Journal") -- because $25 and Under should really be for cheap eats, and there should be something for places that are not cheap eats but are too modestly priced to offer star amenities and also for places like steakhouses that don't offer enough interest to sustain full-on star reviews.

Fat Guy brings up an interesting point. Essentially, I interpret his observations as setting forth a tiered approach to rating NYC restaurants. And, with my limited experience and knowledge of the restaurant landscape there, this seems warranted. Whereas the star system used to be a way of tiering, or stratafying (is that a word?) restaurants, the restaurant scene in NYC has become so complex, multi-layered and broad in scope, that perhaps there is a need to break the field down and only apply the star system to one - the highest tier. Or, perhaps to apply the star system to each of the three (or however many) tiers, but with the understanding that the stars have different significance at each leve.

Is this clear?

So, maybe it (the star system) is antiquated in this sense? Or, it just needs an acknowledged redefinition/revision.

u.e.

[Nathan]

really?

example: both Sriphithai and the Red Cat have two stars.

the food at Red Cat, although good, is not at the level of Sriphithai. on the other hand, the Red Cat has obvious advantages in service and a wine list. I don't see anything inherently contradictory in a scale that weighs those factors and ends up with those restaurants at the same general level -- two stars.

you guys are acting like Platonic formalists.

[rich]

If anything, I enjoy the food experience much more than the ambiance experience and have often campaigned for people to visit places where the food is of high quality but the amibiance is an issue.

Saying that, I don't understand why the Times can't categorize its ratings. If Zagat can do it, then the Times can do it.

The average person (not us, the foodies) will look at a list of ratings from the Times. They will see ST, Red Cat and The Modern all with two stars. The average person will think all perform at the same level - they're not going to take the time to consult other sources. Yet, all three places offer a totally different experience in food, ambiance, service, wine list etc.

If that same person looked at Zagat and all three had the same food rating (whether they do or not is unimportant for this discussion), they would readily see the difference in service and ambiance. The Modern would probably top the list in those two categories followed by the Red Cat and ST.

It's a simple solution and there's no reason not to make the change. Someone should call the Times and mention to the publisher and editors that this isn't 1964 anymore - and as Dorothy said to Toto - this ain't Kansas.

[oakapple]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving places like ST and SRI two stars, three stars or four stars. The problem arises because the system is antiquated.

The NY Times can't (I that's the word I choose to use in this instance) give The Modern and ST two stars without adding something further. It must, as many leading papers in this country already do, split its rating and award different stars for ambiance, service, wine list - or at least one of those categories.

Although many media outlets split their ratings, many do not. For instance, neither NY Mag, nor TONY (both of which award stars) do this. Therefore, I don't exactly think you can call the practice antiquated. Having said that, it seems to me a logical enough thing to do, and I don't really see a downside.

The average person (not us, the foodies) will look at a list of ratings from the Times. They will see ST, Red Cat and The Modern all with two stars. The average person will think all perform at the same level - they're not going to take the time to consult other sources.

I would have a lot more sympathy with this argument if there were actually people raising their hands, and saying, "The Times really screwed me: I visited Spicy & Tasty, thinking it was the same kind of place as The Modern. That was sure misleading!" Then we'd know this is an actual problem. You're expressing indignation on behalf of people who are absent from the discussion....and those people might not actually exist.

[Sneakeater]

Nathan said everything I was going to say. (Although I still think Red Cat's two stars are nuts.)

I think that even with the "$25 and Under" column, there's room for starred reviews of really exceptional cheap places. I think Noodletown deserved its two stars ten years ago, and I think these new entries deserve their two stars now (Spicy & Tasty by repute). I personally think that the institution of the "$25 and Under" column deprived Grand Sichuan of the starred review it deserves, as that place(s) was just getting recognition at about the time the "$25 and Under" column was instituted, and it appeared to me that, at that time, more of an effort was being made to segregate the cheaper places in order to create an identity for the new column.

To make this more (tediously) explicit, I think "$25 and Under" is for places like, say, Via Emilia: places that are worthy in their way but which aren't really of a quality or interest to warrant starred reviews.* I think that if a place has food that's really exceptional, like the Asian places we're discussing, a disservice is done (more to the readers than to the places) by keeping them in the "$25 and Under" ghetto, just because they're cheap and have rudimentary service and ambiance.
_______________________________________________________
* For example, on the one hand, Freeman's is, like, a prototypical "$25 and Under" restaurant: interesting, cheap, and fully worth its cheap prices -- but not really good enough for stars. OTOH, I think its no-star "starred" review was also justified, not so much for anything it said about Freeman's itself (if anything, Freeman's was better served by its "$25 and Under" review, which appreciated it for what it is rather than castigating it for what it isn't), but because an explanation (if not a corrective) was needed of what Bruni's criteria were for small places of modest ambition -- and Freeman's is a well-known (and popular!) enough place to provide a justifiable vehicle for that. In contrast, a no-star "starred" review of a place like Via Emilia would be pointless and even cruel.

Edited by Sneakeater, 29 November 2006 - 12:37 PM.

[rich]

The average person (not us, the foodies) will look at a list of ratings from the Times. They will see ST, Red Cat and The Modern all with two stars. The average person will think all perform at the same level - they're not going to take the time to consult other sources.

I would have a lot more sympathy with this argument if there were actually people raising their hands, and saying, "The Times really screwed me: I visited Spicy & Tasty, thinking it was the same kind of place as The Modern. That was sure misleading!" Then we'd know this is an actual problem. You're expressing indignation on behalf of people who are absent from the discussion....and those people might not actually exist.

Yea, I always stick up for the little guy.

[oakapple]

If money were no object, I'd like to see a third review every week. This would allow for FG's idea — a review for "fine dining," a review for "casual dining," and a review for "interesting hole-in-the-wall joints."

If you're limited to two reviews, I've seen all kinds of suggestions for how the responsibility should be divided. I personally think that a garage in Queens that serves great tacos is beneath journalistic notice, and Meehan should move up the food chain. But I know some people adore hearing about those places.

NY Magazine has a pretty good idea. There are two parallel star systems, one for fine dining, another for cheap eats. The "cheap" stars are printed in a red outline, while the fine dining stars are solid red. That means you can give Spicy & Tasty four "cheap eats" stars, while still making clear that it's a dive that serves terrific food.

But if the Times keeps doing what it's doing, I think the chances of confusion are minimal. Are there many people who think Le Cirque and Spicy & Tasty are comparable, even though they both carry two stars? I agree with FG that Spicy & Tasty somewhat stretches the traditional meaning of two stars. But that meaning has been stretched often enough that I think the horses are already out of the barn. It's not as if all of Bruni's predecessors were uniformly consistent.

Although I still think Red Cat's two stars are nuts.

I do too, but any system that allows for subjective opinion is sometimes going to make errors.

Edited by oakapple, 29 November 2006 - 10:10 AM.

[Nathan]

wasn't there a four star Chinese restaurant back in the day?

people didn't gripe about Oriental Garden getting two. did they gripe about NY Noodletown? Honmura An (how a soba joint ever got 3 is beyond me...but anyway...if it's really that good -- then fine)?

[Sneakeater]

People DEFINITELY griped about Honmura An getting three stars. (It's still one of my favorite places, but I see their point.) Ruth Reichl was constantly criticized for what her critics viewed as her overrating Asian places. Bryan Miller caused a stir by going public with that criticism, in fact.

I think someone pointed out in some thread here that there WAS a Chinese four-star back in the day (Claiborne or Sheraton). I can't remember what it was.

[Sneakeater]

SEARCH RESULTS:

Shun Lee Dynasty, certainly.

Did Uncle Tai's have four stars?

[Nathan]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

[rich]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

Too bad.

[Sneakeater]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

Too bad.

Ditto.