Sneakeater

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...520&hl=chickpea

At this exact moment, I think scare quotes around the word "critic" would actually be justified.

Also, to restate a point I made recently in another thread, it makes sense to judge a restaurant by the extent to which it achieves its aspirations. But only if you discern the aspirations in a "New Criticism" kind of way: from an examination of the restaurant itself, rather than by talking the owners or chef, or trying to psychoanalyze them. Of course, if you're judging on this basis, you also get to judge the aspirations. A Lettuce-Entertain-You-style campy recreation of a Fifties diner (but with higher-quality raw materials) may succeed very well in doing what it's trying to do -- but many of us would consider what it's trying to do bullshit. There's a good deal of discussion of this in current threads on both the New York and Philadelphia boards about the new NYC branch of Morimoto. And -- as I noted in that recent post I've adverted to -- there's always the possibility that a restaurant will fail to fully achieve its goals, and still be better than another restaurant that fully attains more modest ones. It may be that the latter restaurant is more satisfying. But it might not objectively be "better". Of course, that last point raises another question. When you evaluate restaurants, how objective do you try to be? Is it just how much you "liked" or "enjoyed" it? Or do you try to do a more objective analysis? (I personally think that as soon as you're writing for publication -- including even posting on the 'net -- you have to have a strong objective element in your analysis. Which may mean nothing more than not taking your subjective responses for granted, but going on to question, analyze, and try to explain them.)

ouch i dont think that the food of casa mono is in the same league as tia pol the conception and execution of tia pol is pretty flawless in that they acheive 100% of what they aim for; i didnt get the feeling that either the identity or execution of mono was particularly strong ← This is an astonishingly interesting post, and ties in with a thread Pan started in the "General" section on comparing restaurants. First -- although this may seem like backpedalling on my part (it's tough for an amateur to be disagreed with by a professional he respects enormously) -- I don't think we even disagree about the two places. I think you're articulating why Tia Pol is prefereable in a different (and better) way than I did. But second, it's an interesting question whether a restaurant is to be judged by the extent to which it "achieves" what it "aims for" (I'm practicing for a spot in the Per Se "menu" "composition" "department"), or by some more absolute standard. I generally incline toward the former (i.e., the extent to which it attains its goals) -- but only if it is understood that those goals are to be discerned (in a sort of "New Criticism" way) (you "start" with these "scare quotes" and "suddenly" you "can't" "stop" "using" "them") by analyzing the objective circumstances, as opposed to talking to the owners or the chef, or attempting to psychoanalyze them from afar. That said, though, it's still possible that a place will fully "achieve" its "goals" but still not be as good IN ONE RESPECT OR ANOTHER as another place that has different goals or is less successful overall. What I was trying to say about Tia Pol vis-a-vis Casa Mono is that the food at Casa Mono is more ambitious than that at Tia Pol -- and for the most part I think the food (qua food) at Casa Mono succeeds (although not as completely as the food at Tia Pol succeeds at what it is striving for). Now I don't respect what Casa Mono is striving for as much as I respect what Tia Pol is striving for. But, objectively, I'd have a hard time asserting to this board that the food at Tia Pol is "better." Did that post say anything? Anything coherent? I almost feel like I ought to treat anyone who actually finished it to a chorizo con chocolate and a sherry at Tia Pol. And everybody should read and contribute to Pan's "General" thread on this topic. (My attempt was pretty lame.)

This post will deal solely with the issue of comparing restaurants in different locales. Having read the thread you reference, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with comparing restaurants in different geographical locations, if they are otherwise similar. Other than local defensiveness, I don't see any reason not to evaluate an Italian restaurant near San Francisco in comparison to a similar one in New York. When Jams first opened here a couple of decades ago, I certainly wanted to know how it stood up against restaurants in California, not just restaurants in New York. Of course, you have to be fair about it. But you also have to be honest. So, for example, I think it's only right to acknowledge that even the very best French restaurants in New York (NB: I haven't eaten at ADNY yet) don't measure up to the best French restaurants in Paris. You would then evaluate the New York restaurants against each other (in order to make practical dining choices); but it's always salutary to remember how much better a category of food can be than what's on offer here. That doesn't mean you wouldn't eat in the New York restaurants; only that you take them for what they are. I'd say the same thing for dim sum. I don't think it's at all tiresome when people freuquently remind us, in dim sum threads, that as good as some places here are, they're not as good as much of what you can get in Hong Kong. I guess I think this because it squelches complacency, and encourages us to expect more, and hence restauranteurs to try harder. Daniel Boulud has his own aspirations and business model, but I'd rather he know that his work is being compared to the best food of its kind available, not merely to the best available here. Of course, when I switched from Italian restaurants to Jams, I switched subjects somewhat. Comparisons of non-indiginous restaurants in differnt locales (e.g., the San Francisco Italian restaurant v. the New York one) present a different case than comparisons of "satellite" restaurants with restaurants in the mother country. Again, though -- unless the restaurant is serving some kind of peculiarly local variation on the foreign cuisine (e.g., for all I know, Philadelphia, with its large and long-established Italian community, has developed a unique local Italian-American cuisine that could not fairly be compared to other Italian food) -- I don't see why cross-continental comparisons of restaurants are invalid. If there's a restaurant in San Francisco serving the same type of food as one in New York (and obviously it's got to be more similar than just "Italian"), it would be interesting to me to know that the one in San Francisco is better. Of limited utility, obviously (I'm not going to decide to fly to San Francisco for dinnner one night instead of going to Lupa). But still worth knowing. If nothing else, understanding why knowledgeable people think the San Francisco restaurant is better will help me hone my own responses. And, of course, some of us travel frequently.

FWIW, this is EXACTLY why I prefer Tia Pol to Casa Mono. (It's always great when some other poster articulates perfectly some thought you've been having trouble getting down.)

Which is sort of funny, cuz that's exactly the OPPOSITE of what people are saying this place's appeal is.

Similarly, I prefer Tia Pol to Casa Mono. Meaning I enjoy Tia Pol more, have a better time when I go there. Even though I would have a hard time contending that the food at Tia Pol is better than the food at Casa Mono.

You can't fault Peter Luger's because it doesn't cater to vegans.

Yes, I think they do (although the tapas aren't all San Sebastian style). They also have a decent range of sherries (and a sherry cocktail with, I think, lemon soda, which tastes better than it sounds). Bux is absolutely right that this is the kind of place that's great to come upon if you're in the neighborhood anyway, but would probably disappoint you a bit if you went there with the highest of high expectations. I should also add, for emphasis, that I've been unable to get seated there (at least without a 45 minute wait) at least as often as I've been able to be seated. If you do go, to me the two superstar tapas are the roasted green peppers with sea salt and the chorizo on bread with chocolate sauce.

Tia Pol (10th Ave. just south of 23rd St.) IS very special. Actually, getting seated at Tia Pol on weekend is pretty special. What time did you go? I don't think I've ever managed that.

And -- not that it should matter to you (because none of us is trying to tell you or anyone else what to enjoy or how to have a good time) -- the fact that the canned fantasies that are being sold are camp rather than kitschy doesn't make it any more palatable to the people who object to that sort of thing.

That's a good point Doc, and as one of Starr's "defenders" (he doesn't need my help, really...) I have hedged a bit mostly because I could see how people could end up with so-so meals at many of the places. I however will unequivocally say that I have had fantastic meals at Morimoto, Tangerine, Blue Angel, Alma de Cuba, El Vez, Pod and Striped Bass (under Christopher Lee). No caveats, not just a couple of good things here or there, or not good considering the group, or pretty decent for Philly. No reservations about the endorsement: all-out really terrific meals. I've had plenty of good dishes at some other spots. So at least in my experience, it's entirely possible to have a really satisfying meal purely from the cuisine side, even if you were blindfolded and earplugged... Now, how this will translate to NY - we'll just have to wait and see. He has very good chefs working at both places in NY. He had very talented chefs consulting on Buddakan NY. Whether that talent makes it to the plate, or gets lost in the crush of such big, scenster places, again, we'll see. But it absolutely has been my experience that in Philly, sometimes that kitchen talent does shine through the moody lighting. ← Notice I didn't say any ringing endordements! Throughout this discussion, I haven't been out to trash Starr or his restaurants. My experience with them is simply too limited. There is also nothing wrong with a restaurant being set up for people to relax, enjoy themselves and feel like they are having a special time. All the best restaurants do that. There is also nothing wrong with restaurants making a profit I wish more of my favorites would I guess one reason that I am not all that excited about these restaurants is because I see them as personifications of the Disneyization of culture. (How's that for a new word - Disneyization? ) I'd rather have restaurants with individual character than cookie-cutter formulae, especially formulae that tend to homogenize and sugar-coat culture. Now maybe I am all wrong about these restaurants whether they are in philly or NYC. I hope so and if I am I will happily change my tune about them. The fact that the names Morimoto and Buddakan will not have changed even though the interiors of the restaurants and the food itself may be different is significant to me. It is a bit too calculated and cold for my taste. If they are indeed sufficiently different restaurants and concepts they should be labeled accordingly. Perhaps I am being a bit too naive or even a bit too idealistic here (ironic for a NYer ), but my time and my dollars only go so far and I prefer to spend them in and on places with more direct appeal to me. Ironically as well, I think a lot of my cynicism (ok, which is it idealism or cynicism? What can I say, I grew up in Brooklyn ) also stems from the fact that I have also been pretty disappointed with Nobu in NY. ← I would like to adopt every word of this post (except that I wasn't lucky enough to grow up in Brooklyn; I only moved there as an adult).

If they auction off the tall slender waitress with the French accent and the wavey black hair, I'M THERE. (If she's married to one of the owners or something, I'm only kidding.) (If she isn't, ignore the previous parenthetical.)

Probably for the same reasons people rant about "smooth jazz." ← Hey, that's exactly right!

I actually was so pissed off by that overly-cute time-wasting gambit that I was unable -- well, refused -- to read the rest of the review. (Of course, it helped that it was of a restaurant I had no interest in.) Everybody always says that, whatever his limitations as a food critic, Bruni is at least a good writer. I think that stuff is TERRIBLE writing.

Rich, with all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that you're unhealthily obsessed?

I couldn't agree with that more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You certainly don't get the impression they're doing bad business when you try to get a reservation.

To the extent that's so, I think it's because he keeps getting located in the highest-possible-rent most-conservative-possible-audience district. Everybody talks about how long it took Wylie DuFresne to get people to come down to the LES, but actually I think locating WD-50 there was a stroke. The rent (at least back then) was low; the crowd you could expect to venture there was adventurous. Does anybody think WD-50 would have succeeded if located on Central Park South? (Obviously, despite that, I have to second the observation that WD-50 is perhaps the easiest of this City's top restaurants at which to get a reservation.) I think we'd all feel less concerned for Gilt's future if it were located in, say, Tribeca instead of in the New York Palace. What I'm trying to say is that I think it's less the truth that a restaurant like Gilt can't succeed in New York than that perhaps it's less likely to succeed in Midtown.

Twenty years ago, there was a bistro on Flatbush Ave. in Park Slope, Brooklyn, in a space previously occupied by a well-known (to locals) catering hall called Michael's or Michel's or something like that, that served a superb soupe de poissons. Unfortunately, it has long been replaced by a Blockbusters Video store.

There's a "funny" "joke" on the "menu" of Will Goldfarb's "new" "New York" "dessert" "place", Room 4 Dessert. Look for the "cheese plate".

Please add me to the list of people who are entranced with Devi. This is cooking at a very high level. It's better than Dawat was in its heyday. It is, to me, the best Indian food I've ever had in New York -- and some of the best food I've had recently, period. The succession of flavors in single dishes -- that feeling in which Indian food specializes of a succession of flavors as each bite passes over your tongue -- is well managed, the flavors deep and subtle yet vibrant. The quality of the technical execution is very high, and so is the quality of the ingredients. Not here the feeling you sometimes get at places like Mina's that the food could be really celestial if only they could afford better raw materials. The amuse was built around deep-fried brocolli flowers, I believe. Forgive me, but I was still focussing my attention on my delicious cocktail, a ginger collins (made with bourbon). (While waiting for my dining companion, I had a soursop martini at the bar; it worked beautifully with gin replacing the featured vodka.) For appetizers, we split plates of Bombay Bhel Puri and Manchurian Cauliflower. The Bhel Puri has been highly praised here, and it deserves that praise. But let me focus on the Manchurian Cauliflower, one of the very best dishes I've had recently. What a well-conceived dish. The spicy catsup cuts any greasiness -- cuts the sheer "deep friedness" -- of the deep-fried cauliflower. But deep-frying the cauliflower provides a crispiness that prevents the catsup from turning the dish into a bunch of glop. It all comes together perfectly. As even our waiter acknowledged, it's somewhat odd that one of the great dishes now available in New York should be cauliflower covered with catsup. But so it is. I want more. Now. Our entrees provided an interesting contrast. My companion had the tandoori lamb chops; I had the tandoori venison chops. I thought the lamb chops were not wholly successful. Like someone further up in this thread, I like my lamb chops to be toothsome (the "mutton" chop at Keene's is a perfect example). The tandoor makes them too tender, to the point of almost being mushy. It's just not the way I want my lamb chops to be. There's also a lamb shank on the current menu, however, which would only be better the tenderer and more cooked it gets. The venison chop, on the other hand, was fabulous. Probably one of the three or four best venison dishes I've ever had. Venison only benefits from the tenderizing effects of the tandoori oven. And whatever spices they put on it made it interesting without masking the slightly gamey taste of the meat. Desserts were excellent. I had a mango cheesecake; my companion had the bread pudding. There's nothing bad to say about either. I thought the service was also excellent. Extremely helpful with the menu, honest in their suggestions -- our waiter even alerted us when he thought we were ordering too much food -- personable but not cloying, and there when you needed them. I'm still on the fence about drinking wine with Indian food. I think food this rich and spicy is better with beer, or even cocktails. Since we were having lamb and venison, I ordered a red. I made it a light red (an Oregon pinot noir -- very good, by the way) because, although heavier wines might better stand up to the spiciness of the food, I find they exacerbate the richness. I still feel it didn't quite work. Maybe the thing to do is forget Red Grant in From Russia With Love and order a heavy or flavor-forward white, even with meats that would cry out for reds in most European cuisines. Or maybe the thing to do is to stop trying to pair wine with food it doesn't suit. I don't know. What I do know is that I love Devi. I'm dying to try more things on the menu. But what I really want is more of that cauliflower. (I only wish my mother could have lived to see me say that.)

As a New Yorker, I don't want to invade this thread. But this is EXACTLY what everybody you thought were "knocking" Morimoto and Buddakhan (sp?) in the NYC thread were saying. Why would anyone on a board like this care about a restaurant, even if it's successful, if food isn't the reason people are going to it? I wish the operators luck in their ventures, but what's it to us? They can care about it on the fashion boards, or the nightlife boards, or the gossip boards. (I mean, probably the owner of the Olive Garden franchise in Times Square also received a license to print money. But I don't see too many people talking about it on EG.)

I think this is absolutely untrue. With the possible exception of George Bernard Shaw (who is obviously a fairly exceptional person), could you give an example? I can't imagine a worthwhile music review being written by someone who can't follow along the score. (I assume you're talking about classical music. Pop music reviewing -- which I've done; it isn't like I'm trying to say there's anything wrong with it -- isn't even really music reviewing, IMO, but more like cultural criticism. But even there, you need a solid basis of experitse in the field, even if not technical knowledge, for your criticism to have any value -- it isn't enough to just listen to like listening to records. Read Elizabeth Wurtzel's lamentable pop music "critiscism" for the New Yorker in the 1990s and you'll see what happens without such expertise.)