rich

I forgot to add one more restaurant to my 4-star food list - Tasting Room.

It would be easy to pick apart this list, and I'm sure someone will. Instead, I'd ask what are the criteria — in YOUR mind — for the lower star ratings? I mean, you've included here three-star places like Aquavit, Nobu and Chanterelle. It is at least arguable that these places were serving four-star food at the time they were rated, and "other issues" prevented them from getting the fourth star. It is also arguable that even the food wasn't four-star quality at these places, and I suspect someone will make that argument. Grocery, Sparks and Landmarc, however, are currently carrying one star. Are you suggesting that the Times docked them three stars apiece due to non-food issues? Or are you suggesting that the critic was that far off, even on the food component of the rating? If the latter, then the Times rating system isn't the problem; what you're really saying is that the critics are incompetent. You say you're sure there are "quite a few more." What you're arguing for, fundamentally, is that the four-star rating should be a awful lot easier to get. No, I'm arguing for text reviews or for separate food and ambiance ratings. Of course it's easy to pick apart that list as it would to pick apart anyone's list. At least I went on record and posted some names. I don't know why the restaurants recieved the stars they did. I would suggest you ask the reviewer. As for me, these restaurants serve top quality food that I totally enjoy. Is there another criteria necessary?

Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger. And I'm sure there a quite a few more. This may be where the disconnect lies. You are describing places that serve good food, but what is "four star" about their food? Look... I love Landmarc, really love it. But by no stretch of the imagination are they serving four star food. It's ridiculous to even suggest that "mussels or steak with your choice of 5 different sauces" and "sweetbreads with crunchy green beans" are in the same category as what comes out of the kitchen at ADNY. I'm not asking you to agree with me about Landmarc and I said I would consider it if it continuted on its path - meaning creative cooking. What about the others on the list.

Most people here support the idea that restaurants should be rated, and most newspapers around the country do exactly that. What, then, is the evidence for obsolescence, aside from the fact that an apparently small minority don't like it? Sometimes small minorities are correct. And what's your evidence for small minorities around the country?

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did. Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one. Well... his review implied that Babbo might have four star food. Although I have been playing Devil's Advocate a bit to stir up the pot, I don't really think the food at Babbo is entirely in keeping with the current model for four star food. Okay, let's eliminate the ambiance. What's the current model for four-star food?

Which NYC restaurants do YOU think are serving 4 star food without a 4 star rating? Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues to impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger. And I'm sure there a quite a few more.

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did. Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one. I think Henry's End is another and list is probably much longer than that. But even if there wasn't any, the discussion is meaningful because the same points are valid with one and two-star reviews.

I think most people found it "fresh and creative," in the context of something that would only be done once, and in the unique circumstance that it was Hesser's farewell review. A fresh, creative idea is neither fresh nor creative if repeated every week. A fresh, creative idea is one that shouldn't be done just once, especially if it's replacing an old, obsolete idea.

Your original position was that the Times should abolish stars, and only publish unrated reviews. A number of reasons have been given why this is a bad idea. You may not like the reasons, but they're there all the same. I do think it's worth exploring changes to the system, while maintaining the core idea that there should be an actual rating. However, changing the system is a bit like tax reform: you could get a majority to agree that there must surely be a better system, without getting a majority to support any one particular plan. So while the Times mulls this over, in the meantime they have to keep their newspaper running. As you've seen from the discussion here, most people do think there should be a bottom-line rating, however it might be done. I would abolish the stars, but as an alternative separate the food and ambiance. That seems quite simple. What I find interesting is that the majority of readers thought Amanda Hesser's no-star-rating review of Masa was a fresh, creative approach and now most of those same people want to keep the stars. Nothing like consistency.

No argument Steve. But since it's really about the food why not eliminate or separate the star system? Can anyone think of a reason to keep the current NY Time star system? A lot a posts indicate the need to keep it, but none has given a definitive reason why.

I'm not saying there's no place for the "ultra-comfort zone" restaurants. I believe there is, but when an over-emphasis is placed on ambiance, that's where I draw the line. Would that dish have tasted better in more spacious surroundings? I think not. Would I have been more comfortable? Obviously yes (as long as "they" didn't make me wear a tie), but the food would have tasted the same. A text review with no star sytem would have explained the ambiance and then I could make my choice. The wine situation is personally irrelevant. I always choose my own, no matter the restaurant. And for the record, Henry's End has a top-flight wine list.

Based on that statement with those accurate facts, I believe it would be the perfect time to do it. Clean slate, fresh ideas and concepts. Hey, we may stop calling the NY Times the "old gray lady." If the star system remains, adding a fifth star would just further confuse the issue. As of now, it seems too much emphasis is being placed on ambiance for that elusive fourth star. If you added a fifth, a restauranteur would need to have floating tables with anti-gravity devices to "keep up." Seriously, at what point do we (the public, not the professional food critics) place more emphasis on the food than the surroundings? Looking over this thread the majority of remarks have been geared towards ambiance. I realize I'm in the minority, but in my mind that's a "whole lot less important" than the food. I recall the old NYC axiom (back in the 60's & 70's) if a restaurant had a great view (water or skyline) the food wasn't very good. And for the most part that proved true. When I started to seriously dine out on dates (I was 18 in 1968), it was very easy to impress your date by taking them to a "fancy" place, the food was secondary. I thought we, as a society, moved beyond that thinking. Apparently, I'm in error. Put enough money into the place (I think Steve said $20 million), make sure the food is okay (get a great name chef), tell the world your aiming for four stars and you're on your way. Use enough smoke and mirrors and you may get that elusive fourth or fifth star and if the food is good, that's a bonus. I'm obviously exaggerating, but it seems if you carry this thread to it's "illogical conclusion" that's where it will end. Last evning I ate at Henry's End in Brooklyn. The place has been around for 30 years and I've been eating there for 25 years. It's small, cramped and noisy (though they don't play music), but it serves some of the finest food I've ever had. My main course was a grilled tuna (cooked rare to absolute perfection) with a fiddlehead fern pesto. This dish was better than any course I ever had at Per Se, ADNY or Babbo. In my opinion this restaurant has always served "four-star food," but the ambiance woudn't get one star according to our "mirrors and smoke" mentality. I can give no better example of why to revamp or eliminate the star system than Henry's End. Eveyone seems to knock Zagat, but at least they have enough sense to separate the food the rest of the stuff.

But Steve, you qualify the "four star" comment by saying "not to your way of thinking" and therein lies the problem with stars. Bruni was very clear in what he thought a four star restaurant should be, but other NY Times reviewers haven't been as clear. Therefore it's impossible to gauge which way their subjectivety slanted. No critic can ever be expected (nor would it make sense) to explain their subjective "star" system in every review. So why not do away with the stars and just give a text review?

Reading through this thread (and noticing the wide range of opinions) appears to give more credence to eliminating, or at the very least, seriously changing the NY Times star system. Unfortunately, they missed an opportunity to revamp this when they had a new critic coming on board. It could have been a seamless transition. Hey, come to think of it, Ms. Hesser's no rating column on Masa could have been the "segue" review.

Just a quick follow-up question. Does anyone believe the current NY Times star system is relevant in today's more casual society?

I'm not disagreeing with the rating. Personally, it doesn't matter. Babbo is very nice and very adventuresome - nothing more, nothing less. I just think the star rating system is archaic. When Bruni used the music et al to say that's the main reason for the place not getting four stars, he entered into the arena of explaining how the the NY Times star system works or more importantly doesn't. In today's society, it seems that food is far more important than ambiance and I don't believe as many people are looking for the jacket and tie place to have top quality food. It may serve the Times to study their star system, especially as it relates to ambiance because that's even more subjective than any one critic's view of food. Right now the NY Times has stars awarded to restaurants from no less than six different critics (maybe more). How can anyone determine what subjective concepts were in play when these stars were determined? You can't, it's difficult enough with one critic, it's impossible with several. So if you're eating a three-star NY Times restaurant you may never be sure if it received four stars for the food and three for the ambiance or three stars for the food and four for the ambiance (or three for both). At least Bruni suggested the former for Babbo. I would totally eliminate the star system, but the NY Times probably won't be that drastic. One suggestion would be to go the Zagat route and award a food rating and an ambiance rating that's EMBLEMATIC of the total experience. The music was simply the vehicle Bruni used and that I picked upon. When I dined at ADNY and Per Se, there were things I thought garish and could have found fault with, but they didn't affect the way I felt about the food or restaurant as a whole. I firmly believe that because of the way we live today, you can have a so-called "four-star" experience at a place that plays hard rock, classical or no music at all - it's in the eye of the beholder. Just remember if ambiance played a major role, the "beloved" (not by me) Luger's would probably be lucky to get one star.

Agree except for imported Italian packed in Olive Oil. Makes the best tuna mouse this side of Sicily.

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. This comment is so off the wall, I'm not sure where to begin. The music was emblematic of an ambiance problem that caused Babbo to fall into the three-star category. If you accept that, then here is a simple point ot digest: IF BRUNI HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE AMBIANCE - HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT FOUR STARS BASED ON THE FOOD. I think, ergo my opinion, that the star system creates inherent problems because of the subjectivity of many reviwers in one publication. If someone was a fan of hard rock and the more casual dining style - then Babbo is a four-star place to themb based on this review. Just eliminate the stars - then we have nothing to debate. I couldn't care less if it was three, four of ten stars. Personally I enjoy Babbo, but it's far from the best Italian in the city, but it is the most adventurous.

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. I was trying to save my typing fingers by not listing the other things he said. Bottom line, Bruni mentioned the music first and I used that as an example. True Reichl gave it three, but did she think the food was four or three? Bruni thought the food was four (or so he suggested), did Reichl feel the ambiance lowered the rating or did she ignore that? But more importantly, two reviewers CAN have the same taste, but they might not have. Again if you read carefully (as you suggested to me), then you will see I wrote "...IF another reviewer had a different opinion..." I realize "if" has only two letters, but try not to ignore it - it's very important at times.

I don't follow you at all. The text review is as subjective as the star rating. Besides, at least he explained his reasoning. To my mind, you're being too critical of this new critic's first review. Please don't misunderstand, I think the review was excellent. I think the "hard rock music" line was silly and was only included because the sillier star system forced Bruni to expalin himself. Last week I criticized Amanda Hesser because she said should would "rather not" give Masa a star review because a new critic would be taking over "next week". Many people responded it was a great review because the NY Times should publish more reviews without stars. I explained it wasn't the star system I was defending, just that someone shouldn't pass the buck to the next reviewer. Likewise, I'm not criticizing the star system because it's subjective (just as text reviews). I'm criticizing it because of the subjectivity of the DIFFERENT critics in the same publication, ie Reichel, Grimes, Asimov, Hesser, Bruni et al. In simple terms what's a three-star to one of them, could be a four-star or two-star to another one of them. Therefore, throw away the stars the touque hats etc, etc. Just give the review, I'll figure it out.

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.) Read again carefully - I said his first and most emphatic complaint.

Either way, it's the same point - it's his opinion. And if another reviewer had a different opinion about the music (either taste or "appropriatness") than the "stars" would change -either twinkle a little brighter or dimmer.

But isn't that the inherent problem with the star system? Reviews in the same publication are often written by different people with different tastes. So, if Bruni was a fan of hard rock music (his first and most emphatic complaint) would he have given Babbo four stars? Who knows, the NY Times may have a listed four-star restaurant that plays Brodway show tunes because some past reviewer loved that type of music and rated the restaurant accordingly. Since reviews are always subjective, the star system makes little or no sense when different critics review a restaurant. On the other hand a simple text review is not affected by a change of critics. Afterall, mixed reviews (and differing opinions) are the name of the game. Hell, that's what makes horse racing.

Why not just eliminate the damn star system altogether? It causes more problems than it's worth anyway. (Wasn't it given as one of the reasons for a chef's suicide in France?) Just give the review and let the readers decide. Next time I go to a "four-star" restaurant, I'm making sure I bring my hip-hop and rap CD's to replace the "dentist" music. I think all that good food just turns sour when I'm thinking of having my teeth drilled. If anything should hasten the demise of the star system, then it should be music. Will they serve four, three or two star cuisine on the upcoming revival of American Bandstand?

Admin: 2005 "Bruni and Beyond" discussion may be found here. So Babbo is a four-star restaurant, but because hard rock music was playing it lost a star. Is the converse true? If a restaurant has three-star food but plays music the reviewer thoroughly enjoys, does it get elevated to four stars? I think the reasoning behind Babbo losing a star because of music could be the most ludicrous I've ever heard - hard rock or not.