JohnL

Generalizations about wine are dicey--but we all make them--adds to the fun! The vast majority of Burgundies are fine at five to ten years age(IMOP). It would be interesting if Florida Jim specified what Burgundies he was talking about in his post. (Jim???) In my experience--I happen to love and have cellared a lot of Burgundy over the past twenty years or so--very few need decades of age. I also have developed an appreciation for drinking wines at younger ages (maybe I am ageing--and that's why!). so that's a factor (Jim may prefer his Burgundy at an older age). I suspect that depending upon the producer and adding in the fact that Jim is probably talking about First growth and Grand Cru wines --these are likely to be quite expensive! also I am curious as to why you are interested in the 98 and 93 vintages. anyway we need to hear from Jim!

I resent anyone who thinks they are better than me (or anyone else) because they purport to posess better taste. (in fact many people certainly do--those are folks I learn from--I guess it's all about attitude). Snobs--be they wine snobs or food snobs are snobs. As for the chicken thing-- I have had some very good free range versions and I have had some tough flavorless versions. As for those "supermarket" brands some people seem to look down upon--I have had some good and some not so good versions. I would point out that David Rosengarten on his late lamented "Taste" program endorsed the use of a supermarket chicken vs free range etc for use in his roast chicken recipe--he clearly stated the (I believe it was a Purdue) "yellow" chicken was cheaper and had better flavor (for the recipe). I agree with David and my experience confirms it. You may feel otherwise--and have different experiences. (ps--I love cilantro as well) I would also point you in the direction of the recent comments re: Blue Hill at Stone Barns wherein there was some debate as to the "taste" or lack thereof of their chicken. The whole point of the Times op ed was that there is a snob element to a lot of current thought about food--I agree. There is also a lot of elitism--this is wrong as well. It is one thing to be 'elite" it is quite another to be "elitist".

Yes that is a valid point! I think Ms teague was getting at the style of these young sommeliers and commenting on the current scene. Maybe the people who hire and train these young "turks" are the real source of the problem. In the end wine service is about people and helping customers and applying one's knowledge and expertise to that end.

This is a forest for the trees thing. The Times Op Ed piece should not be taken quite so literally. It expresses some valid and interesting points and can help put all this into better perspective. Food for Thought if you will. These topics do not fit neatly into little boxes. Fact is I try to select/buy food that is good tasting and reasonably priced. I sometimes buy "luxury" items-fleur de sel or good Tuscan olive oil sometimes I buy more generic items. Some is labeled organic some not. I do not really care much about the "scene" or lack thereof in the stores and shops in which I do my shopping--I feel no need to "identify" with my fellow shoppers. I would opt for a good tasting hothouse tomato over a vapid tasting heirloom a good tasting Purdue chicken over a tasteless free range one and vice verse. I do resent anyone telling me there is no such thing as tasty Purdue chicken much as I resent someone telling me I am elitist for enjoying a free range version. In the end--I just want good tasting food and I want to be able to pay what I think is a reasonable price for that food.

Yes, but of what, don't you see? I see this asserted lately, sometimes by people who never even heard of all of the respected, independent US wine newsletter critics of the 1970s (predating Mr. P), critics who offered in essence the same service that he did, excepting the categorical statements and the two-digit number. Though these asserters seldom offer real comparative assessment versus the earlier critics (preferring to intone an increasingly mythical notion of the US wine criticism scene before the breath of fresh air -- often, also before their own experience), there was a real change with his advent: the appeal of the decisive pronouncements and of the two-digit number. As I said, some found these attractive. Occasionally we get penetrating looks at this phenomenon, which are not necessarily negative. But we don't get them from the True Believers.Woe unto anyone who dares question the new orthodoxy. Realities at issue need not even come into play. Stuart Yaniger, in McCoy's new Parker biography The Emperor of Wine, is quoted as learning on the Prodigy online service the unacceptability of questioning Parker’s ideas or methods. Following “dodge” answers from P. would arrive “thirty or forty or fifty emails from the Human Shield ... `how dare you imply the great man is anything but a paragon of honesty. Clearly you are a horrible person and how jealous you must be of the Great Bob.’ ” “Religious reactions” was Yaniger’s characterization. His experience of the Faithful is consistent with mine online for 20+ years, predating Prodigy. -- if you insist on introducing such language; hardly my point. ← Max, Robert Parker has had quite substantial success, that is irrefutable. There are many reasons behind that success. But the fact remains, were Parker off or wrong on his assements to any great degree he would lose his credibility and his success would quickly wane. That is enough people put some credence in his assessments to establish Parker's credibility. If you want to denegrate those people (I am sure there are many zealots among them) so be it. There are large numbers of people who are equally zealous in their dislike of Parker. This is pretty much to be expected when anyone expresses strong opinions. (especially regarding something as ethereal as wine). As to the "breath of fresh air" comment I made. If those anonymous (you fail to mention any) "seventies" newsletter writers were able to communicate as effectively as Parker perhaps they would have been more impactful. There is an element of right place right time in play and Ms McCoy's book does a good job of explaining what happened to Mr Finnigan (there I mentioned one) and his contemporaries. Perhaps the myth is that there was any substantive American wine criticism pre Parker. As for the compatriots not being sheep comment, you seem to be implying that the problem lies with those who follow Parker (I am assuming you mean those who subscribe to his news letter). That is they are somehow following blindly. I am sure that some do. However many are very knowledgeable wine lovers (again Ms McCoy's book does a good job identifying Parkers fans) who are anything but blind. Many of them also disagree with Parker from time to time. There are many very good wine writers some of whom agree with Parker and some who disagree with parker and his methods and approach there is a lot of room for debate. It should be noted that for what ever reasons Parker is responsible in full or part for the sucess of many of them. Tanzer, Meadows etc. and many European writers have increased subscription lists due to Parker. So I guess in the end everybody wins. What I find most disturbing about the Parker detractors is many of the comments are tinged with elitism. Yes wine snobbery! There is a lot of room to criticize Parker and his approach to wine but unfortunately many detractors would rather grumble about Parker's success and how anyone who follows him must be......... ps ya know I just realized that this thread is about a piece in F and W regarding thirty something sommeliers and here we are in a discussion of Robert Parker?!

I don't know if they still serve the BLT (the last time I had it was years ago). I remember that I read a review of Union Square Cafe that mentioned the BLT that piqued my interest. The sandwich as I remember it was pretty classic: great bread, superb bacon and fresh lettuce and tomato.

I think a big factor is that in Europe there is a long history of wine production and drinking. That is most areas produced wine for drinking by the people who lived in the area in question. For eg--in the Loire they drink local wines produced in the Loire. In Piedmont why would the local citizens drink anything from Tuscany or Sicily--and vice verse? Thus it is no wonder that it has been a long time for Europeans to even have many options in terms of availability of wines produced in other parts of their own countries let alone the rest of the world! It is also obvious that politics are involved--why offer foreign produced wines in competition with the locally produced stuff?. Also transportation systems and geography are factors--it was probably quite difficult getting say, Piedmont wines down to Sicily etc. let alone into Germany.

I agree re: farmed rabbit. For the most part, it does not seem to have a lot of flavor. However, I have experienced more than a few "organically raised. free range" chickens with little or no taste. And I have had some pretty flavorful mass produced samples--so maybe nature plays a mystery role somewhere in all of this. Even "wild" game was "hung" to gain flavor (and tenderness) throughout history. I do agree about the D'Artagnon rabbit it is quite good!

Reading the entire piece in F and W I noted that Ms teague does offer some perspective: "These men and women worked long hours constructing creative and challenging wine lists. And while some could be a bit overzealous, their enthusiasm was inspiring and certainly helped to sell a lot of wine..." A sommelier has a job that boils down to: gauging a customer and their likes and dislikes and what price level they are compfortable with --then recommending a wine appropriate to the food being ordered. The question of how much wine they have tasted (the age thing) is, in my opinion, secondary to their ability engage a customer and deliver a pleasant experience for that customer. Ms Teague seems to be pointing out that the youthful exhuberance sometimes gets in the way of that pleasant experience. Arguing with a customer (disagreeing) that"no it (the wine in question) doesn't it tastes like Burgundy." is an ill informed, somewhat arrogant comment. I would also like to note that I have encountered many an older (over forty) sommelier who was equally arrogant and overbearing (though often with more subtlety and style). A good example of youthful exhuberance is the sommelier who is passionate about an obscure wine and "pushes" it with an "I know something you don't know--let me turn you to it..." approach. What is missing is the all important element of good service: knowing the customer and anticipating his or her likes and dislikes--then determining the best wine on the list for their dining experience. Not "thrusting" your knowledge and enthusiasm upon them with an "I know what's best for me so it will be best for you" approach. Also some good points by "Gaucho" re: credentials etc. It may be that young people have not yet gained any real perspective as to what their role in the dining experience is. It may also be a trend that restaurateurs have also lost sight of this role and are more interested in a "young gun" or "hotshot" rather than a thoughtful and customer friendly wine service overall. It certainly may be a salary thing as well--I am not very well versed in the area. As for Max H and the not so subtle mention of Mr Parker: The proof is in the pudding as they say! His track record speaks for itself. At the time, Parker was a breath of fresh air (to many he still is). Agree or disagree with him, he basically says:I have tasted this wine here is what I think. I doubt your "compatriots" are sheep-- so more than likely they find enough points of agreement with Mr P's pronouncements to follow him. As for Parker's brashness--I doubt that he would have been noticed had he been equivocal in his pronouncements. Also Parker is in the business of offering up his opinions for money, a sommelier needs to be a bit more deferential, I think, as only a part of an overall dining experience.

It's been a while but I loved the BLT at Union Square Cafe. It is interesting that such a simple sandwich with few ingredients is so hard to perfect! I believe that it comes down to freshness and quality/flavor of the elements. There is simply no way to hide less than optimum quality in any one of the components.

One of my all time favorites was (I haven't seen him for a while): BIKER BILLY ("Biker Billy cooks with Fire"). A NJ guy who had a cooking show relfecting the Biker lifestyle. A true classic!

Very good point! Tess-It is Slate afterall. I guess we can start on the news media--that is those who report and write about the food world. Is Ruhlman in the house?

I agree with you re: the Food Network. However as the Food Network grows in its broader appeal the more watered down the content.(though they really should have some room for more serious programs). A benefit to this may be that , if I am not mistaken, there is more food programming elsewhere on the dial than ever before. PBS is carrying more than ever, You now have ABC,NBC and Fox in the mix and add Radio (Rocco et al) and there is no doubt that appreciation of food is exploding. This is all good--though there is room to pick plenty of nits (I am worried that Gordon Ramsey will get a hold of a nuclear weapon and are we ready for a foodie sitcom "Kitchen Confidential"?--does Anthony Bourdain's material need a laugh track?) all can say is stay tuned--it's gettin jiggy out here!!!

It is clear that persona is important here. The Food Network is attempting to reach a very broad audience. Rachel R is the perky girl next door who loves to cook and entertain! Ms Lee is the nice lady down the block who loves to cook and entertain (although we are talking 1959) If I recall properly Bobby Flay was asked to tone down the NY wise ass attitude so he would have broader appeal. It's all about image and audience identification. Often the cooking is secondary. But for many people out here in the fields (not Virginia Fileds-the nice lady who bakes cookies) cooking is secondary in their lives otherwise they would be watching Colameco, or Trotter or Bastianich on PBS. People can be as serious as they want and find something out there that floats their boat. In the end though if food and eating and drinking are more prominent in people's lives to whatever extent-so much the better! We even have serious (ok fairly serious) and less serious reality cooking shows: Hell's Kitchen and Cooking Under Fire! All in all if you like food and cooking there is a lot out there where not long ago all we had was Julia!

Curious! You might want to elaborate a bit as to your experience with RR. I have seen several episodes of her show and Rachel is always on camera preparing stuff (not via v.o.) The whole food on TV thing is interesting and you being in the business or involved in it somehow would have some interesting perspective or insight.

Good points Jaymes. I, in all honesty, am not a big fan of either but I think you provide some perspective ie both. Sandra Lee's approach seems like something in a timewarp. I keep thinking that I am in the fifties or sixties watching her.

You've made a number of perceptive points and I'll be the first to admit that a kind of bashing on the internet has not represented highpoint of intellect or or critical opinion, but I seriously question the idea that any introduction to cooking is better than none. I might also go so far as to say that you may have discovered fine wines in spite of ordering a white zinfandel. Plenty of people never get past instant mashed potatoes and plenty of people develop a deep interest in cooking after exposure to simple honest cooking. ← Yes I may have discovered fine wines without the introduction via white zinfandel. I like to think I would have. But the fact remains that many people enjoy white zinfandel and will not move on or will try some "better" quality wines and decide they just likew white zinfandel. I would not decry the existance of white zinfandel not am I prone to think myself "better" than anyone who "just likes white zinfandel" to the point of being critical of them. I think that Rachel Ray is popular because many people identify with her and her level of cooking skills. I must say I do not know her level of skill in reality. On her show and in her books she comes across as someone of modest skills who is enthusiastic about cooking and eating. A more serious approach may, in fact, turn off a lot of people. There is also the entertainment factor. This is an area of subjectivity: some people find certain things funny or entertaining while others will not. (goofy hand gestures etc). One can argue that someone is talented or not talented but remember-there are legions who think Gallagher or Carrot Top are a scream and there are equal legions who cringe at these guys. I personally enjoy the cooking show on PBS that Charlie Trotter does. I think he is unpretentious and informative while executing relatively simple dishes. However, I would venture that many people would find him a bit too "dry" and would prefer the populist schtick of a Rachel Ray. In terms of seriousness and gravitas there is no comparison-- however for many people for whom creative cooking means using a can of mushroom soup in a sauce populist schtick may be what appeals to them. I also enjoy the Three Stooges! The Food Network has become popular because they are taking a certain approach to food and cooking. There is a lot of room for criticism. It is obvious what Rachel Ray is all about and we can certainly be critical of her technique and argue about her effectiveness but I think we are taking her and the Food Network a bit too seriously--I am trying to say that maybe Rachel ray is a start for many people because of the schtick (can you say BAM!) and the lack of gravitas. Maybe some of these people will become more serious about food and cooking and "discover" Charlie Trotter on PBS(maybe some will not and will continue to watch the Food Network for the entertainment factor). A couple of anecdotal things that may or may not be germain: I have been told (practically hectored) in various magazine pieces that:"one must tear one's lettuce" not cut it. Lest I be a culinary cretin! I thought this terribly pretentious until I watched Alton Brown (talk about schtick!!!!) who explained the theory--I got it (without being talked down to). I once attempted Cassoulet based on a recipe in Gourmet (they made it clear that this was the way to make cassoulet--all others were imposters--there could be no shortcuts!) after three days and endless steps --I was so sick of the whole cooking process: I couldn't eat any of it! I couldn't look at a white bean for several months. Later while dining at a favorite French Bistro (the late L'ecluse in the village) I told the chef owner of my trials and tribulations--he laughed (gently) and told me he used a number of shortcuts and that no chef in his right mind could run a restaurant making cassoulet the "Gourmet" way. After all is said and done--it's just food and cooking and eating it should be fun and user friendly. (if one wants to make it serious and "suffer" over the pots and pans for one's "art" that's fine --we need those types too). and by the way--I think Rachel Ray does have a big head--someone once posited a theory that many successful entertainers have big (sizewise) heads. Better that than a small mind I suppose.

I will defend anyone's right to say whatever they want to, about anyone! All I am saying is it might be a good idea to stop and think a bit before launching into a diatribe about the size of someones head! After all, where does it get you? You are not going to convince the thousands of people who enjoy Rachel Ray and like her (she must sell thousands of books and have a large audience on TV) to stop reading and watching her. This can't possibly be about a "crusade" to protect the masses from her! So-it seems this is more about a personal catharsis. That's also fine, but I lament the use of this forum as "therapy" though, I suppose in the end, that's not really that horrible either.

I remember sitting around with my fellow musicians many years ago and playing our favorite game: trashing other musicians, especially lead guitarists and singers (they were, after all, the most visible). "yeah so and so sucks he can't play real music or that lead singer is an asshole she has a big ass and can't sing....." etc. or "I'm better than that jerk, I am really serious about music..." One day I realized that we were bashing people who were engaged in careers and were recording --making records--something we aspired to. I stopped bashing other musicians. I am suprised at the level of vituperativeness in some posts, especially those railling against the food network and specific personalities. (Tod English, Emeril, Flay etc). Even within the industry; for eg Amanda Hesser's attack on Emeril years ago. I contrast this with the few professionals I know personally, who are incredibly generous and deferential--once I told Wayne Nish of March that I thought he was one of my favorite chefs along with Charlie Trotter, he was genuinely embarrassed and humbled--especially suprising because, really : who was I? other than an anonymous patron of his restaurant. I read a piece in Elle magazine (latest issue) wherein the writer "confesses" to Thomas keller that she could not eat his fois gras and cut it into pieces and "hid" it on the plate. His response was amazingly deferential and understanding. The point is, the level of discourse lately (I would include many topics: politics, religion--the usual culprits) as well as those that are meant to enrich our lives like music, the arts and, of all things, food etc has become especially shrill and relentless. The internet is a reason, some critical threads can easily become "feeding frenzies" The art of criticism is often lost in favor of personal attacks. Different people approach food and cooking and dining out with varying degrees of importance in their lives. The Food Network is TV they are trying to reach the largest possible audience. I enjoy cooking and going to fine restaurants, I also like hot dogs and see the "entertainment" value in some "not so serious" programs. One can certainly be critical of Rachel Ray, she is fair game, but it seems to me attacking her as though she were the antichrist is a bit over the top. Putting things wildly out of perspective. At the very worst, she will certainly not destroy fine cuisine or the culinary arts and at best, she may introduce some people to cooking and food who might not otherwise "discover" these things and who will move on to more "serious" and "authentic" programming. After all, I "discovered" fine wines by ordering a white zinfandel once!

I have a DVD of Mondovino sitting here on my desk--looking forward to watching it. I did read the book by Lawrence Osborne "Accidental Connoisseur" who was inspired by Nossiter. I loved this book which I believe is a much more fair presentation of the Nossiter side of the argument. I also see Parker's side as well--he is an easy target after all and he has been misrepresented by many people. It should be noted that there probably would not have been a "Mondovino" if there was no Parker! I would recommend Elin McCoy's bio of Parker which was just released--she does a pretty good job of laying out the two sides. You make a good point ie the Rhone--- Parker has done way more good than many would admit. The fact is small producers make good and bad wine and large producers make good and bad wine. Terroir is a fine concept but it is not the be all and end all some of its proponants make it to be. The fact is--wine is a complex and fascinating drink with more than a little mysticism and magic involved.

If one were to apply a "worst case" scenario prior to embarking upon any activity one would live in abject fear. This includes walking, running, exercise,drinking anything,eating anything,leaving the house, not leaving the house........... That's what phobias are all about! There is risk in everything--including living! Let alone enjoying life to any degree at all. In order to function (and to enjoy life at all) one must be prudent and practical. We make decisions based upon rational consideration and we ponder the odds and we move on. For eg--yes--one can get BSE from eating a hamburger (cooked or uncooked) yet odds are wildly in favor of one not getting BSE or anything else so one would rationally determine that the pleasure of eating a hamburger "outweighs" the risk and that person will (the odds are great) enjoy life (and ground beef) and be happy and well adjusted. (or they might eat the burger and be the one in eight billion --I am sure the oodds are even higher--who drops dead) or they may chose to not eat the burger andmiss out on one of life's pleasures. I guess it all comes down to: "Do the math and proceed".

In thinking about this thread, I have realized that I do not have a good sense of what North African cuisine really is. That is the essence of it. I "know" tagines and cous cous but can it be 'boiled" down to something easier to grasp? For example--I believe that Thai cuisine which has "broken out" can be "summed up" at a very base and simplistic level to something like "Chinese but lighter" --that is Thai became popular because, in part, it would have an appeal to people who "liked" Chinese cuisine.--it is not that far removed so that one could see a person who was familiar with (and possibly a bit tired of) Chinese at least trying Thai cuisine. Look at the popular Thai dishes: Dumplings, Spring Rolls, noodles, curries etc as well as some of the soups. Any sophisticated palate would "see" that Thai food is most certainly not Chinese cuisine and vice verse but there are undeniable "similarities". Does anyone see what I am getting at? Am I on to something? So in the case of North African-- Can this cuisine be "reduced" to a identifier? Say: "North African food it's like-----only-----.

Sounds like quite a scene! That space is a real problem--it is simply too large in a way that is not very conducive to a restaurant. I thought that the previous incarnation: Judson Grill was a very fine and somewhat underappreciated restaurant under a very good and underappreciated chef. (Bill Telepan). Given the size and location and "celebrity" of the chef this new venture is destined to become a "tourist" spot. (not that there's anything wrong with that).

There was some criticism in a thread here recently, of Bobby Flay's attempt at korean food. I believe that authentic or not so authentic in their recipes and ingredients--people like Flay and Emeril "featuring" any ethnic cuisine can go a long way toward "popularizing" it. Cous cous--the really perfect foundation for a thirty minute meal! also The general topic of cuisines that are on the brink..would make for a great magazine piece. For eg--North African, korean, Indonesian, Vietnamese, etc have all seemed at one time or another to be ready to break out and for some reason (or reasons) keep "bubbling" below the surface!

I ate at BHSB last week. First--I would definitely recommend going there an hour before dinner to just walk the grounds (wear comfortable shoes). The pastoral scene is very calming. the greenhouse very impressive and the archetecture is very nice. Also the herb gardens are great to see-everything labeled. Anyway-- We arrived a bit early and had drinks on the "patio" the scene was wonderful--vast fields and an occasional tractor in the distance--we could have been anywhere in the midwest rather than fifteen minutes from bustling Tarrytown. One of my companions ordered the martini and was disappointed--the pickled ramp was overpowering and added a sweet off putting element to the drink. (a matter of taste but there is still nothing like the classic prep for this drink). After a while we were led to our table for four. (this is one place where the patio and bar areas are so nicely done one does not mind waiting for a table--the staff was professional and friendly). I must say that there are elements of praise and some critiques in many of the posts in this thread with which I agree. THE FOOD The salads were quite good. My wife had a salad of mixed greens over a scrambled egg--the greens were good and the eggs were good but the combination did not really come together. Two of us had salads with the "fried farm egg" these were very good--the egg prep works well. I had a cold pea soup special which our waiter informed me was made with no dairy--hard to believe! The soup was so rich and creamy in texture-it was quite good. I also had a chestnut pasta with braised chicken leg in a mushroom broth. This was good due mostly to the intensely flavored broth. There was very little chicken meat and the pasta was slightly gummy. also-the broth was quite salty--but i did not mind this. One shrimp dish (I did not taste) was acclaimed by the person who ordered it--"This is the way shrimp really taste"--a clear winner. The baby lamb was also loved by the two people who tasted it. I had the berkshire Pig--this was a very nice dish--the flavors were intense and the preparation was interesting--it worked very well. The chicken--two of us tasted this and I must agree with some of the posters--it is quite bland. Also given the intense flavor of the pork I must say the chicken was disappointing. I think overall--this is a fine restaurant with some real hits and some misses. The service was good--the pacing of the dishes was just right--this is food to linger over and savor--the hits and the misses. Perhaps the quality of ingredients now available to restaurants in the Northeast has risen to the point that even the top notch product used (and grown/raised) at Stone Barns, while superb doesn't really wow us. The cooking here is most definitely interesting with herbs playing a major role and spices most definitely a bit player, if that. The whole experience is one of calm. The atmosphere and the food. I was impressed that even with relatively small portions--I was completely satiated (I did not even want desert--a first for me). This is due to the intensity and richness of the food. Yet I did not feel bloated-I felt quite good! There is a Zen like quality to the whole experience here. The only real disappointment was the chicken--it is quite possible that this kind of subtle cooking meant to showcase the freshness and quality of the ingredients also points up any flaws (the cooking almost demands that the main ingredients be flavorful). For example a classic roast chicken with crisp skin garlic, lemmon, herbs is very forgiving if the actual chicken is lacking in flavor. The preparations at BHSB provide little cover for the main ingredients--this is IMOP a great plus here but also--given the difficulties in producing consistant high quality organic products--this is nature after all--and sometimes nature doesn't cooperate perfectly every time. All in all--BHSB is quite unique--I can't think of many restaurants where the experience--food--atmosphere etc come together so well, so nicely integrated. While there is a low wow factor (no fireworks in food or ambience)there is a quieting and subtle contemplative aspect that I find very rewarding.