Sneakeater

Yeah. Your girlfriend had better like what you look like.

In that case, if you don't mind spicy, Grand Sichuan is the best.

There is noplace in that neighborhood that you can't go to in jeans.

Just to be clear about the recommendations you're getting, that's why I made the recommendation I did. I assumed you wanted someplace "nice" to go with your friends. Even Grand Sichuan International -- everybody's choice as the best place in the immediate area -- isn't a place for a "nice" night out, if that's what you're looking for. I guess you have to tell us what you want in that regard.

You might consider Taboon, an upscale Middle Eastern restaurant at 10th Ave. and 52nd St.

It occurs to me, Todd, that our different reactions may be the result of the vagaries of ordering. Did your appetizer sampler include the pelmeni? To me, they were the standout dish. Starting with them favorably disposed me toward the rest of the meal. We both liked the sturgeon. I agree with you that it isn't a knockout. But coming after the pelmeni, it seemed, perhaps, better -- or in any event I enjoyed it more -- than it would have coming after a mediocre appetizer. And, of course, I didn't have to endure a plate of boney overcooked halibut.

I don't think I'll be able to bring myself (or more to the point, my wallet) back there for a long time either.

There is no reason for anyone your age to have ever been to the RTR. "Fun" is hardly a word that seems to fit with a crowd as geriatric as tonight's. I'm sure it's a different scene during the week. I had a drink at the bar before dinner, and the bartender and I managed to entertain each other. It didn't seem like a bar you'd want to eat at. All that said, I used to love Troykas and Ivan the Terribles, among their old house cocktails, and apparently I still do.

One last thing: I found the food at the Biltmore Room too busy. I may have my own personal prejudices here, but I actually prefer the new Russian Tea Room. (Which is not to say that I consider the new RTR as significant or important as the Biltmore Room.)

Other notes: 1. Yeah, prices are high. This is the Russian Fucking Tea Room. What do you expect? But now I, for one, think the food deserves them. 2. My one gripe was the lack of any house-infused vodkas. I asked about that, and was told that Robins is developing a set -- but that he has so much else to do (such as putting together a lunch menu) that he hasn't had time to pay sufficient attention to them yet. They should be available in the future. 3. Please understand that, despite my lavish-seeming praise, I'm not trying to claim that this is one of the very best restaurants in New York. Cross-referencing to the "Bruni and Beyond" thread, what I'm saying is that this is a place whose food, perhaps for idiosyncratic reasons, appeals to me personally in a big way. I think it's objectively very good -- just as I used to think Danube was -- but I'm not arguing that it belongs in the handful of truly elite New York restaurants -- just as Danube didn't. It's worth noting that they both have notable rooms. (The downstairs dining room here is similar to the way it used to be, with [i think] new lighting fixtures. It would have been a pity if they changed it much.) 4. While I usually don't consider a restaurant's business prospects to be any of my business -- I really only care what I think of it -- I wonder if this particular concept makes sense. On this night, I certainly wasn't surrounded by people I would expect to particularly appreciate the inventive fineness of Gary Robins's cooking: they looked a lot like people who used to go to the old Russian Tea Room. (In fact, next to chamber music concerts at the 92nd St. Y and New York Philharmonic concerts, this now goes to the top of my list of places to go when I want to feel young and vibrant.) I do have to say, though, that everybody looked pretty happy. I wonder, however, whether Robins -- famously infected with wanderlust -- is going to feel inspired to stay here. As I noted above, cooking his own variation on Russian food wasn't his idea -- and I wonder how long he'll want to keep doing so for an audience that I doubt really appreciates what he's doing.

I liked the Russian Tea Room a lot more than Todd. As is well known, the concept of this place is now, renowned fusion chef Gary Robins does Russian. It bothers me that it's so contrived -- clearly, Robins is doing this because he was hired to, not because he felt any burning need to play around with Russian cooking. Nevertheless, I liked it a whole lot (although there are some caveats to that opinion that I have to disclose, which I'll get to below). For an appetizer, I had the foie gras pelmeni. I thought this was a fabulously successful dish. Foie gras simply works in this context -- the filling of the dumplings was incredibly rich, and this being essentially Russian cooking, you couldn't even think to complain that the foie gras made the dish too heavy. Best of all, though, was the consomme. It was a very intense beef (or more accurately oxtail) broth, with diced carrots and other root vegetables. Some might complain that it was a touch too salty -- but not us ethnic East Europeans, who just appreciate the jolt of flavor. For an entree, I had the tea-smoked sturgeon. Again, I viewed this as a wholly successful dish. It was in some kind of tangy fruit sauce (I have no idea what it was), with mushrooms and braised endive and spinach. I've loved smoked sturgeon all my life, and here it was, superbly refined. Topped off by dessert blini -- these had BETTER be good, or else the new RTR should close up shop immediately. But of course they were. Accompanied by a really lucious orchid oolong, served, as it must be, in a glass. What the new iteration of the Russian Tea Room reminded me of, more than anything, was the early days of Danube, when Mario Lohniger was the chef. I loved that restaurant: a refined, modern version of a hearty tradional cuisine. And I liked the new Russian Tea Room for the same reason. Now I suppose that it's hardly a coincidence that one of my grandmothers was Austrian (OK, Jewish) and the other was Russian (OK, Jewish). These foods are like grandmother's milk to me. I think I'm just hardwired to like them -- and so am particularly susceptible to the refined innovative versions served here and, at least formerly, at Danube. I first ate at the RTR at the ass end of the Stewart-Gordon era, and last ate there sometime in the middle of the Baum era. The new iteration is simply incomparable to them. Those featured middling-to-barely-edible food in an outlandish setting. Now we have excellent food in an outlandish setting. I can't say I'll be a regular, but I hope to be back.

Better than Kuruma's uni? (Kuruma's uni is really fantastic.)

You're right you're right you're right.

Google discloses that the place I'm thinking of had the highly original (but descriptive) name, Terrance Brennan's Seafood & Chop House.

Wasn't An American Place Larry Forgione's restaurant somewhere else around there? This was a place that focussed almost exclusively on carved-at-tableside roasts and stuff.

This is now ancient history, but anyone ever go to that restaurant Terrance Brennan used to have a few years ago in some east-Midtown hotel that served prime rib and similar items? I was curious, but never made it before it closed.

They used to have prime rib as a weekly (Thursday) special at Pershing Square. It was very good, I thought. It's no longer on the menu. They serve prime rib at Keen's. After detailed extended exploration, I've decided that it's only OK. But if you need a fix, it's good enough. (You need to order the larger, on-the-bone dinner-menu cut, not the pub menu cut.) (Both menus, confusingly, being available in both the pub and the dining room.)

And, of course, Thomson too knew the difference between a good Beethoven performance and a bad one. He was particularly impressed by Beecham's reading of the Seventh.

Fat Guy has made a similar point on numerous occasions. Even in subjective criticism, there are norms that must be observed, or you fail to communicate. A restaurant critic that can't appreciate Alain Ducasse is like a music critic who can't appreciate Beethoven. I make that analogy to point out that it's not about the stars. Bruni's reviews of Alain Ducasse and The Modern would be wrong-headed even if the Times didn't award stars. The fact that they do just makes it more apparent. ← One of the greatest of all American music critics, Virgil Thomson, in fact did NOT appreciate Beethoven. But he gave cogent reasons for that controversial position. He didn't just dismiss Beethoven's work, or act as if it wasn't important. Mostly, I guess, that just means Thomson was a better critic than Bruni is (an obvious observation). But to an extent, I'd argue, the use of stars in restaurant reviews encourages Bruni's fault. Because, as you say, in the end what we remember is the peremptory judgment encapsulated by the star award. I'd argue that encourages a similar peremptory approach to the whole critical/evaluative process. Because, after all, the stars make it seem like it's just a consumer guide, not a piece of serious criticism. So what would be inappropriate about just going by your own likes and dislikes?

I don't think anyone argues that subjectivity isn't (and shouldn't be) implicit in the ratings. I think the argument is that it shouldn't be primary.

(Obligatory notation that just because I made the foregoing argument, that doesn't mean that I think the star system has any validity.)

Let me do something odd and actually get back on to topic. One problem many of us have had with Bruni is that, too often, he seems to go off solely on his own subjective response to places and doesn't try to objectively think how they stack up in the general world of restaurants, according to generally-applicable criteria that go beyond how much he personally liked (or was "excited" by) the meal. I mean, The Modern. He apparently just didn't like it that much. But looking at it objectively, applying general criteria of what makes a restaurant good as opposed to simply noting your own personal responses, how is it not a three-star restaurant? Really, how is ADNY not a four-star?

I think that's it. I think my criteria for determining "greatness" are more objective than my purely subjective responses that determine what I particularly like. And, yeah, part of it is that they're received. Obviously I haven't thought this completely through yet.

I don't know what to say, other than that they're less subjective.

I'm not saying that Poulenc isn't good, much less that Schubert isn't great. I'm just saying that just because I listen to as much Poulenc as Bach, it doesn't mean I'd ever say that Poulenc is as good as Bach. And just because I often feel more like listening to Schubert than Beethoven, it doesn't mean I'd say that Schubert is better than Beethoven. There's my purely subjective response, and my other response. I don't know what to call it. "Objective/subjective"? Restaurant parallels: even if I had all the money in the world, I think I'd still prefer going to Blaue Gans over Per Se. But I'd never argue that Blaue Gans is "better", much less "best". Even among places I can readily afford (so price isn't the determining factor), I could never say that Franny's is the "best" of them. It's just the one I enjoy gong to most. I.e., my "favorite".