Sneakeater

After posting about this in the PDT thread, I started thinking about it. First, I wondered why I can almost always get into Pegu, and almost never get into PDT or D&C. And I recalled the rather obvious fact that Pegu is seemingly something like three times as large as those other places. So I reached to conclusion that if you want to have a highly-hyped lounge, and not turn large numbers of people away, you have to be the size of Pegu. Now, you might want to turn large numbers of customers away -- that kind of exclusivity is often prized by clubs. But if you don't, you have to be fairly large.* Second, I realized that even when Pegu was about the only game in town, you could always get in. So the people who fill PDT and D&C night after night aren't the same pool of people who were going to Pegu before those places opened. This could mean several different things. First, it could mean that the more of these places that open, and the more publicity they receive, the more demand is generated for "cocktailian" cocktails. But second, it could mean that the appeal of D&C and PDT isn't solely based on the cocktails. Both those places seem to me to be designed to appeal to a younger crowd than Pegu, and both feature more "atmospherics" than Pegu. And, of course, their small size creates its own appeal. (I don't think Angel's Share would have been nearly so popular in its hayday if it were easy to get into.) Since I don't believe that masses of people are motivated by a desire for high-quality cocktails, my own conclusion would be that PDT and D&C are popular primarily for reasons other than the quality of the cocktails. But John, you're really better positioned than anyone to know that. What do you think? PS -- How come we don't talk about the bar at Tailor in this context? I'm not blaming anyone: I don't, either. Is it because it's attached to a full-service restaurant? I don't really think of it as being in the mainstream of "cocktailian" lounges -- but I can't think of a reason why I shouldn't. ETA: I hadn't seen docsconz's cross-posted post when I wrote that PS. ____________________________________________________________ * This isn't unique to bars, obviously. I don't think that Momofuku Noodle Bar was designed to turn people away. I think it just worked out that way -- to the delight of its owners. Even the opening of Ssam Bar didn't take the pressure off Noodle Bar. Only now, with Noodle Bar's new expanded premises, is there some relief.

Too late to help you, but: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=85906&hl=

No, it's actually kinda cool in showing how useful archives like this are.

You see that you're actually agreeing with yourself, right?

Which is why Pegu has remained my go-to place, despite its having been eclipsed, in most people's minds, by PDT and Death & Co.

Having spent an hour -- an hour! -- dialing and redialing for a reservation yesterday afternoon, and not surprisingly being unable to get one when I finally got through, and having been (unsurprisingly) unable to walk into PDT (or Death & Co.) with a friend at about 9 or 9:30 last night, and having been unable to get into either place in my last four or five attempts; I have to conclude that the "serious cocktail" market is still being seriously underserved in NYC -- to an extent that makes it virtually impossible to participate in it. I'm not complaining, but I can't make it to places at 6 or 6:30 in the evening (I work later than that), and I can't plan ahead enough to make reservations to grab a drink, especially by myself -- and anytime other than the week between Christmas and New Year's I can't spend an hour during a workday trying to get through to a reservations number (and I'll be damned if I'm going to ask my secretary to spend an hour trying to phone a cocktail lounge). I'm also not going to schlepp to the East Village after work in the hope of getting into a bar that I know I'll probably be excluded from. As I said, I'm not complaining. I'm happy for these places' success. But I'm unhappy that they don't seem to fit into my lifestyle. I wish I could go to them. I guess we need even more. The demand is obviously there. (I've heard rumors of one opening on my street in Brooklyn -- but having investigated, I think my informant was confused.)

Finally, I have to say, with respect to oakapple's point that Hearth and Landmarc were once foodboard darlings and now Ssam Bar is just the next one, that I for one have always been on record as not having seen what the big deal was about Hearth and Landmarc, which I always saw as boring, overrated comfort food joints. But, as is obvious, despite my initial skepticism, I'm genuinely excited about Ssam Bar. I'm not saying that, if I like it, it's NP. I'm just saying that some of us detect a difference between Ssam Bar and those prior board darlings. (Anyway, I've always argued that NP-candidate Bouley Upstairs wasn't enough of a board darling.)

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the real essence of the "New Paradigm" is its mix of haute and not. And it doesn't particularly matter what the "not" is. Moreover -- and this is why I think R4D was nearly "bullseye" NP even though nothing on its menu was particularly simple -- the "not" doesn't necessarily have to relate solely to food. You could have a place that serves almost exclusively elaborate "haute" food, but it could still be NP if you do it in an assertedly informal setting (NB: not "semi-formal", like, say, Hearth -- but informal), at prices that, per meal, are relatively gentle (i.e., R4D wasn't particularly cheap per serving, if you look at it as "just dessert" -- but if you look at it as going to a "haute" restaurant, what you would spend to eat there en toto wasn't much [and, reversing the dining-out mantra of my father-in-law's generation, you could have "savories at home"]).

All I meant is that it can't be NOTHING BUT "tweaked rustic". That's something else.

I came back to this thread to see what people would make of today's Bruni piece. I think Fat Guy has that nailed. A few comments on the last several months' discussion: 1. I don't see why restaurants that serve only dessert get excluded from New Paradigm. I thought R4D was a paradigmatic New Paradigm place. 2. In terms of describing the NP menu mix, I think "basic" is a better word than "rustic". It isn't so much that NP menus mix country and city: it's that they mix elaborate with simple. The reason many of us think Bouley Upstairs is a NP place, for example, is that you can just get a hamburger or a bowl of pasta if you want -- while your tablemate gets an elaborate halibut preparation. 3. Dave the Cook is right that we proponents of the "New Paradigm" have done a bad job of defining it (I've argued previously that the definition will become clearer as more restaurants are identified as "NP" and we can see what ties them together). I think that an important feature that Fat Guy has emphasized, but that gets left out of the stated definitions, is the broad range of choices of types of meal you can have: as Fat Guy says, you can have a dish or a four-course dinner. Sure, regulars could always walk into a place like Le Cirque and order nothing more than a cup of chicken consomme -- but the New Paradigm extends that range of choice, at the upper reaches of technical accomplishment, to all. 4. What the NP isn't, I think, is tweaked rustic food. The reason I don't think Resto is NP is because there's nothing particularly haute on the menu: it's all tweaked rustic dishes. (That's not an insult: I like Resto [and remain mystified why so many others here don't].) Also endemic to NP places, I think, is culinary border-crossing, which Resto doesn't do. It seems to me that a large part of the NP is surprise at seeing various different things together on the same menu. (It's interesting, because most of us react very badly to restaurants that try to do too much. Part of what's "new" about the New Paradigm is that they can do all this border-crossing and mixing of different types of dishes while maintaining a strong auteurial focus. Indeed, I never thought about it this way, but a good parallel is early Godard, whose movies were a mishmash of all kinds of high and low features, all held together by the director's vision.)

Almost certainly not L'Impero. Could it be Marchi's?

I'm sorry. I can't help myself. How can you say that, when Sam hasn't called anyone "lazy" for failing to share his priorities? The disingenuousness comes, not from failing to "relate to" other people's priorities, but from denigrating those who don't share yours. (I understand you were just trying be provocative. As Sam keeps saying, "disingenuousness" isn't the worst thing in the world.)

The first thing I'm asserting that a professional writer critiquing either should be conversant with Chuck Berry. But what I'm REALLY asserting is that I couldn't imagine taking any professional rock critic seriously who wasn't familar with all three (Chuck Berry, John Hiatt, the Killers).* This is their JOB. It isn't like they're some person who listens to whatever they happen to listen to. So yeah, I'm not going to take any professional critiquing the Killers seriously if they're not conversant with John Hiatt. (Again, I hope the relevance of this analogy is obvious.) _____________________________________________________ * They don't have to LIKE all three. They just have to be conversant with them all.

But how can you assert anything "might be the best pizza in NY" if you admittedly haven't tried at least one consensus favorite (and I doubt you've been to DiFara or Coney Island Totonno's, either)? Of course, as oakapple said, you get a pass on stuff like that, where Bruni doesn't, because you're not a professional critic. But it helps even us dabblers to remember when we're not in a position to say anything too definitive.

To make what I hope will be perceived as a relevant analogy: When I read rock criticism by writers who evidence no familiarity with the root musics from which rock evolved -- blues, rhythm & blues, jump jazz, swing, honky-tonk, etc. (much less with early rock and roll itself) -- I disregard them. They just dabblers. They can't say anything educated about the music. All they can have are opinions, and we all know the standard line about those.

I thought that's what Gordon Ramsey is already doing.

Although if you come through the street entrance, watch out for the unexpected step. Especially if it's very bright out and your eyes haven't yet adjusted to the dimmer lighting.

Mozzerlla Sticks

1. what you seem incapable of comprehending is that it is unclear to the rest of us why his credibility as a critic has anything to do with whether his sexual orientation is "an issue"....what difference does it make whether he is the best food reviewer on the planet or the worst? how do either of those statuses make his orientation an issue? assume for a moment that Sneakeater is a shitty food writer (sorry, Sneak!), does the fact that he mentions his heterosexuality on occasion make it an issue because of his (hypothetical) shitty food writing? (he writes about food quite well btw). you're still insisting on different rules if someone is gay. 2. no one here has ever said that someone's gender or sexual preference never affects their writing or criticism. no one ever said that. what I called you on in your initial post was your implicit reference to critical theory to make the absurd claim that someone's sexual orientation (well, you didn't say this applied to us breeders) inevitably affects all aspects of their writing no matter what they write about. as I said before, there are gay writers and there are writers who happen to be gay. and there's a difference (and a continuum in between). ← Now you are speaking for "the rest of us." I agree with your astute conclusion that "there are gay writers and writers who happen to be gay." also your even more astute observation that there is a "difference." You are welcome to infer whatever you want to. One final question. If in one of his reports on the political scene covering government. Bruni declared "I am gay." or a liberal or a conservative." would someone be even remotely justified in reading that piece as well as ensuing pieces by Bruni wondering what role his being gay or liberal or conservative was playing in terms of the perspective being applied to the subject at hand? Afterall what exactly would be one's point in making such an announcement in an arena where the announcement should have no bearing on anything? Kinda like when someone opens by stating that "It's not about the money but...." I'm sorry Nathan, I realize I must be driving you nuts! I'm done making points. We really should move on. you will never agree with me, though as noted above, I agree with you so I guess we are in some sort of agreement here! can we agree on that much?! ← Which is why Bruni only brought up his sexual orientation when he was reviewing a restaurant located IN A STRIP CLUB. (I know people must be getting tired of reading me saying this, but let's face it, this whole discussion is pretty tiresome.)

Just for the record, by the standards I hold Bruni to, I am a completely shitty food writer. I'm also not such a raging success as a heterosexual (but that's a topic for a different board). One other thing that was interesting about the Grimes review Nathan linked is that it was precisely the kind of "hidden gem"/"underappreciated spot" that we've been arguing about. I guess Nathan would argue that, in the current internet era, people would have been all over that place as soon as the new chef moved in. I wonder, though, whether there still might not be several places of like quality floating under the radar.

I guess you're actually (not just nominally) Dutch?

We're not still in high school?

I know white people who eat watermelons, too -- most of the ones I know, actually -- but a stereotype is a stereotype and a slur is a slur.

Except that to me, two of them were insulting failures, and one worked.

I agree. But that's why I keep saying that all this subsidiary carping just obscures the fundamental criticism to which Bruni is subject.