oakapple

I totally agree. However, this has always been the Times system, dating back to Craig Claiborne, and the Times clearly says on its website that the rating considers more than just the food. Think of it this way: Bruni has done you a great favor. Because he clearly stated his criteria, you're left in no doubt that the food is four-star quality. If that's all you care about, you should be happy, because Bruni has spelled it out. If you care about the whole range of factors that Times reviewers traditionally consider, you should also be happy, because he followed the system corrrectly.

To which several of us have given you the very clear answer: "No, because Bruni quite lucidly explained that the three-star rating was not merely because of the type of music played, but for numerous factors, of which the loud music was emblematic." If all (or nearly all) of those factors changed, then yes, Babbo might be a four-star restaurant. It would also not be the same place. Remember, it is not a bad thing to be rated three stars. Three stars, in the Times system, means "excellent." In this city of thousands of restaurant, there are only about 40 of these. It is rarefied territory.

But Bruni said it was emblematic of the reasons Babbo is not four stars. There is simply no support in the text for your assertion that: Remember, Ruth Reichl gave it three stars also.

The stars merely summarize the reviewer's reaction. If you abolished the stars, you'd still have a body of work written by different critics, years apart, not necessarily consistent with any particular standard. If the stars are inconsistent, it's only because the reviews themselves are inconsistent. Read again, very carefully. Bruni gave a whole host of reasons for the three-star rating. Moreover, it was not merely the genre of music being played, but also the fact that he found it too loud. (He did not say that he dislikes rock music.) If the Times did not assign stars, there would still be complaints that a restaurant review should confine itself to the food. This issue comes up every time a reviewer devotes part of the allotted space to non-food aspects of the overall experience.

Until the last sentence of the paragraph, you are stating established sources without bias. The last sentence, saying that these statistics are "disturbing," clearly does have a bias, but I'll pass over that point to get to a bigger one. My original comment, to which this was part of the reply, responded to your reference to "an emerging cosseted class that travels to and from four-star restaurants in black sedans and forgets that the waiters, busboys and line cooks that serve them have less chance than they have had in 80 years to go from server to diner is wrong." These are the "facts not in evidence." You've produced no data showing that this "class" is "cosseted," or that they travel to and from four-star restaurants in black sedans, or that they have the attitute towards busboys and line cooks that you've attributed to them. This lack of objectivity is found in just about every paragraph you've offered on the topic so far.

The Times's website says, "Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration." This isn't new. Since the days of Craig Claiborne, a restaurant has had to excel in all departments, not just the food, to earn four stars. Furthermore, he says the loudness of the music is emblematic of the problems that deny Babbo the fourth star. Bruni says: No restaurant has ever earned four stars from the Times given comments such as these - and I note that no one so far has disputed that they are accurate. Now, you might not like this reviewing standard, but it has been the standard for a long time. Bruni is writing for the Times, and must follow their system. No, because a four-star restaurant must be extraordinary in all dimensions.

I dined at Dominic last night. Chilled spring pea soup with spiced shrimp was a lively start. I hadn't read the menu too carefully, so I would have been happy with just a solid pea soup, which this was. The unexpected spiced shrimp offered a flavor explosion, making me regret there was just one of them in the bowl. Onto a main course of crispy Atlantic skate with endive marmelada and pink peppercorn vinaigrette, on a bed of stewed cherry tomatoes. Yes, the fish was delightfully crisp on the outside, with just a hint of the marmelade flavor suggested in the description. I couldn't perceive the pink peppercorn vinaigrette, but the palate here seems to lean towards the subtle. The fish came with warmed greens and a three of a large vegetable I couldn't recognize - shaped like sausages, but tasting like onions. Appetizers are $9-12, pastas $8-12 for starter portions, $16-20 as mains. Other main courses (a mixture of meat and fish) are $19-26. Side dishes are $5. The prix fixe is $38 for any three dishes on the menu, or $52 with wine pairings. My meal of appetizer, main course, and a glass of the house wine was $46 with tax and tip. Dominic's décor is mostly unchanged from its Pico days. It's comfortable, spacious, and friendly to the eye. Service was smart and attentive. I will definitely be visiting Dominic again.

Let me join the chorus of those who thought that this was an excellent start for Mr. Bruni. Sam Kinsey wrote: Whether said or unsaid, non-culinary elements have always been a big part of the ratings criteria, and especially so at the high end. The Times's website even tells us, "Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration." Fat Guy wrote: Hesser last week and Bruni this week both explained the difference between three and four stars, and they explained it much the same way. It probably doesn't need to be stated again anytime soon. But I wouldn't mind hearing what, in Mr. Bruni's view, is the difference between two and three stars, or between one and two - a standard I don't recall any recent reviewer explaining. It would be a most interesting discussion, and also a quite valuable one. After all, there will be comparatively few restaurants for which the possibility of a four-star rating even crosses his mind, but there will be many more times when the one-two or two-three star boundary is in question. RobinsonCuisine wrote: You said "Italian restaurants" (plural); he has reviewed one. It was a brilliant choice. As a reviewer, Bruni is a stranger to us. By writing well about a restaurant whose place in the dining hierarchy is already established, Bruni introduces himself as a food critic and establishes a context for reviews of less familiar restaurants to come. The Times has a long history of re-reviewing important restaurants periodically, and while the policy for doing so has never been entirely clear, a second look at Babbo six years later was certainly appropriate.

This, as they say in the law, is assuming facts not in evidence. No wonder Grimes ducked the issue! Funny how this cosseted class is emerging all around me, and somehow I missed it.

Ok, I'll discuss it. Income disparity is not immoral. Any society offering free choice is bound to have both winners and losers, as well as every gradation in between. Can you think of very many counter-examples? Well, perhaps you'll think of something, but in general the societies without income disparity are the societies without income.

Mags wrote: It sounds like you're setting up a straw man. Did anyone actually say that authenticity is objectively measurable? And are objectively measurable qualities the only ones we care about?

Is food intrinsically in its own category? Or does it merely seem that way due to your own personal priorities? You say that food "can't ever be shared." To the contrary, a group can easily dine out together and order dishes for sharing. I have had several memorable meals recently where this was done. Other times, a companion may say, "May I have a taste of yours? Would you like a taste of mine?" Certainly it's common to share a bottle of wine. No doubt the overall dining experience - the ambiance, the conversation, the service - is shared. The comment that "there's something very solitary about eating" may be your personal experience or preference, but it is not intrinsically true. The Gucci handbag, on the other hand, is quite different. It is a material item, and however pricey it may be, it endures long after the date of purchase. But restaurant meals, concerts and baseball games are all transitory experiences. Which of these fleeting events we enjoy most seems largely a matter of personal choice.

I don't think good taste is associated with class. However, it is highly unlikely that you'll have expensive tastes unless you've somehow been exposed to them. Whether you acquire these tastes, assuming you've had the opportunity, depends on the person. I've certainly known people who had the means and the opportunity to dine out well, but simply never developed the interest. Someone strapped for cash probably won't have the opportunity very often, however much they desire it; but many of those who can afford it choose to spend their resources elsewhere.

...don't the Zagats reportedly do many of the same things? No one has ever reported the Zagats saying, "Give us this meal for free, and we'll bump up your food rating from 21 to 26."

I'm not convinced that's a moral issue. You can pay $95 for box seats at Yankee Stadium, with no assurance as to the quality of the game, or whether all the Yankees' regular players will even be in the lineup that day. There's a lot more consistency of output at most restaurants than at comparably priced sporting events. Most Broadway musicals these days have a top ticket of $100 or higher. Unlike a Yankee game, a musical at least follows the same script every night. But like anything involving human effort, theatrical performances aren't identical every time out. If the cast give an underwhelming performance, or understudies are inserted that evening, you're still out $100. This is the chance you take in choosing that type of entertainment. If you want it to be identical every time, rent a DVD. Restaurants are really no different, and it's not a moral issue unless the food has been fundamentally misrepresented. You can have your $95 Yankee game, your $100 night on Broadway, or your $100 restaurant meal. All are transitory events of approximately the same duration, with no iron-clad assurance of having a wonderful time.

Seattle. Not exactly a small town. Reading between the lines here, my interpretation is that it was more about power than money. He enjoyed showing people that he had the power get away without paying. Also, the article mentioned that Ripp was offered free Seattle Supersonics tickets on at least one occasion - and that was merely the case they found out about, because the e-mail came to his office after he'd already left the paper. Fat Guy wrote: Reviewing anonymously seems to be the norm at most papers. Most jouranalistic standards aren't a matter of fundamental ethics, but a matter of what's likely to produce the most useful and reliable stories. A reviewer who openly flaunts his identity is very likely to have dining experiences that almost no one else could have. The reviews might make entertaining reading, but they would lose their connection to reality. I'm reminded of a comment Fat Guy put in his Landmarc review (on the New York board): I'm inferring that FG, who realizes that both he and eGullet are well known in the industry, thought there was some value to finding out what kind of service he'd get if he didn't pre-identify himself as an influential media insider. It's the same principle.

Zagat doesn't do a separate survey of the "bar dining" experience. Rather, they note whether a restaurant has certain attributes. You can search on those attributes, then sort the list by food rating. GT actually has an extremely high Zagat food rating of 27, but for some reason it doesn't have the "bar dining" attribute, so it doesn't come up when you search that way. Any database is bound to have some errors, but this search feature is actually pretty damned useful.

Go to Zagat's New York guide, advanced search, and select "Dining at the Bar." Some 697 restaurants are returned. Sort them by food rating, and the top choices are: Daniel Babbo Veritas Danube Oceana Union Square Cafe Picholine I also read that Felidia has recently introduced dining at the bar.

The Peter Luger menu is definitely a tradition, and to change it now would make about as much sense as New Coke. But the credit card business is different. Why hand over several percent of the tab to a credit card company, when they can insist on hard cash and still attract a full house very night? It would require a prodigious show of chutzpah to open a restaurant today and not accept credit cards, but if you went back far enough nobody accepted them. Luger's has managed to stay booked without taking credit cards, so they've never had any motivation to change.

Bob Lape gives BLT Steak three stars in today's Crain's New York Business:

In Fat Guy's efforts to discredit the "authenticity police," I fear perhaps he has gone too far in the opposite direction. I agree, if the food is good, it's a pretty lame criticism to complain merely because it's "inauthentic." But this does not mean that a phrase such as "authentic Italian food" is utterly devoid of meaning. As I noted earlier in this thread, something that's difficult to define precisely can still be meaningful. FG said: I will go ahead and say the opposite. All restaurant meals are derivative. The only variable is the extent of the repetition. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many recipes you can think of that don't borrow something from successful models. Or, ask yourself how many restaurant reviews you've read - or written - that do not make analogies to food served elsewhere. These analogies are possible because there are reference cuisines that we all recognize as part of our inherited food culture. Next time you see "pizza," "cheesecake," "duck a l'orange," or "porterhouse steak" on a menu, think of what's not being said. There is a shared culture that allows the menu author to put a few words on the page, and let our minds fill in the rest. This wouldn't be possible without a reference model that sets the expectation of what a dish is supposed to be. Some clever chefs delight us by inventing new riffs on familiar models, but others delight us simply by recreating the original model faithfully. Members of eGullet are atypical. Look how many posts there have been on the Per Se thread, and compare it with the percentage of the general population that will actually ever eat there. The vast majority of the restaurant meals served consist of chefs duplicating reference cuisines or adapting them modestly. The chefs who are regularly "inventing" anything are in the minority. Of course, no two servings of spaghetti & meatballs are exactly alike, but there are a helluva lot more people eating that recognizable dish than are eating Thomas Keller's salmon cones. Mags wrote: I am sincerely hoping this is a deliberate exaggeration for effect. Do you really mean that there is no analogy to be made between "Italian" restaurants in New York and Italian restaurants in Italy? If so, the proposition is laughably ridiculous. I've eaten a fair amount of Italian food in Italy, and the resemblance is obvious.

I ate at the TriBeCa branch of Churrascaria Plataforma 2-3 months ago. I don't recall having any objection to the noise level. For the amount of great food you get, it is very fairly priced. Remember, it's "all you can eat." This didn't appear to be the case. The servers are just roaming all night long, and it seems to be a matter of chance what order the dishes reach you. After we'd already turned our coasters to red, the manager came over asked us what we'd liked best. He then implored us to turn them back to green, found the servers of those items, and sent them back to our table so we could have more.

I can certainly agree with FG that cuisines evolve. So-called "authentic" cuisines are simply cooking styles anchored to particular times and places that we decide are important - or that the market has decided are important. It may just be an accident of history that certain cuisines have come to be accepted as reference points, and others have not. The fact that "authentic French cuisine" is difficult to define with precision, does not make it meaningless. The world is full of terms that are imprecise. What is art? What is classical music? What is modern dance? We don't eschew these terms just because some of the exemplars defy ready classification. Now, some of the reference cuisines we're accustomed to may, in fact, be poor reflections of the original models. Sweet & Sour Chicken may be an American riff on Chinese food, rather than being something that anyone in China would have recognized, but it is now iconic, and one expects to find it on "Chinese" restaurant menus. On the other hand, it most likely does have some connection to actual Chinese food of a particular place and time. It is more likely connected to actual Chinese food than to, say, Italian, French, or German food. FG asks: He adds: However, there are cuisines available in New York representing places where I will probably never travel. Going to a restaurant is like a mini-vacation, but a lot less expensive. Like anyone who loves to travel, on some level I have a thirst for discovery. Knowing where a cuisine came from is, on some level, interesting to me. Is the recipe I'm tasting one that a Mexican native would recognize, or is it a made-up dish served in a restaurant that happens to call itself "Mexican?" FG's right that, if it isn't good, the fact it's supposedly authentic doesn't matter very much; and if it is good, to an extent it doesn't matter how the dish was created. Knowing where it came from is still interesting, though.

I have the same feeling. Sam's earlier D.J. columns read more like reviews. The more recent ones read like rough drafts of the first chapter of a novel. In any event, I've enjoyed these impressionistic riffs. I believe this was the last one. From now on, Mr. Bruni will be writing the main reviews and the D.J. entries as well.

I doubt that this is the new direction of the Times reviews, and I don't think anyone's saying so. Breaking the mold once doesn't change everything going forward. Breaking the mold occasionally may actually do some good, as it forces us to challenge old assumptions. The Times's reviewing system isn't perfect. Perhaps it could use some shaking up.