macrosan

Neutral, tolerant, libertarian

Yeah, that's for sure ! Heck, they turned Yvonne Johnson down, so the ones they picked must be absolute wows

Fresh_a, could you be more specific about this ? Are you saying that "service" in France is not allocated to the staff ? And is this true in all levels of restaurant, and in hotels ? In which case, what does it pay for ?

So who does dis guy tink he is ? Where does he get off wid saying tinks like dat ? We ain't esoteric enough for him ? Let dis guy Gruff come to my lap-dancing club. I'll show de punk esoteric.

Rachel, the article says "The nineteen everyday pies...are divided into Otto and Classica categories, the former imbued with delicious Bataliana like shaved bottarga and lardo (or pork fatback, also known as pure cholesterol). ". I read that as meaning all the "Otto" category pizzas are "imbued with lard". Am I totally misreading this ?

Courtesy of Orik in the Risotteria thread :

Tommy, you keep out of this !!! Ron has exactly the right approach to this, and I think that visit to Italy is not only an excellent suggestion, but may even be tax-deductible. I also heard a rumor that eGullet has a contingency fund for exactly this type of vital research. I am available any time after March, Ron. Hmmm, how do you pronounce that ? Is it Ron as in hoe or Ron as in Ron ?

Nope Of course, we have to allow for Italian regional dialect, but I know of no region of Italy which pronounces it as you describe. But then, we did have the same disagreement over risotto so I guess we're both being consistent

That would be me dad. I humour him. ... yeah, mine too. But the question is at the heart of the discussion, and warrants a full answer. In my definition, an elitist is one who looks down on people with less knowledge than he has, and loses no opportunity to boast of his own knowledge for the purpose of self-aggrandisement. In the case of your dad, I guess it depends on exactly how you "humour" him

Just a comment on FatGuy's proposition on a restaurant being either "chef-driven" or "owner-driven". In my experience, most businesses are broadly either "marketing-driven" or "finance-driven". Over time, there seems to be a repetitive cycle, lasting maybe six to eight years, during which a business moves from orientation towards one of those disciplines to the other, then back again in the next cycle. I have always believed that this cycle is essential to the long-term health of a company, since each different discipline is refreshed and re-motivated at stages in the cycle, rather like plants through the seasons. In the restaurant context, an owner will generally don the "finance" hat and the chef will don the "marketing" hat. I would expect a restaurant to follow my hypothetical cycle. Now perhaps many restaurants don't survive the ten years it might take for the cycle to become evident, but I wonder if anyone has observed such changes in the "engine" of long-established restaurants.

I did pick up two curious points from that review which were missing from this thread. First is that Batali uses lard to cook or prepare at least some of his pizzas. I've never heard of this being done before. Is this common in the USA ? I hope he doesn't indicate on the menu that any of these pizzas are vegetarian, or he could suffer the fate of MacDonalds Second was that there is a permanently reserved table for the opartners This seems very twee and cliquish, and quite out of style with what everyone here describes as the general style of the place. Why on earth would they do such a thing ? What kind of statement does it make, and to whom ? Incidentally, what does lavash-thin mean ?

But this is to miss the point of the discussion, Tony. Suppose that you want to buy a car or a DVD player and you know someone who knows a lot less about them than you, then how do you feel when they offer their suggestions and advice ?

Whenever I have produced my UK driving licence in the States, the response has always been roars of laughter. Car rental counter staff find it hilarious. Even a speed cop in New Jersey laughed so much that he couldn't bring himself to write the ticket.

Quite so, and in any case this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed in this thread.

Just proves his absolute impartiality in his relentless opursuit of the truth I wouldn't dream of entering a colonial battle as to which city has more of what. Doesn't mean a darn thing. Talk of Blair's "cool Britannia" is, I think, more wishful thinking than reality. Indeed, even the British wish that it were so, but the problem is that it patently isn't. What really matters in the "personality" of a city is its people. The city you prefer will be determined by which of its people you prefer. And its so difficult to generalize about a body of ten million people, that I wouldn't even attempt to do it. I love both cities for different things, at different times, and from different perspectives. I'd rather not have to choose

We cynics struggle to enter meaningful conversations about some "modern art". But surely what separates the visual arts from all others is that their practitioners arrogate to themselves the right to define it. So if an artist says "this is art" then there is no objective basis upon which that claim can be denied. So a painter can calim that a blank canvas is art, and that has been done and (seemingly) gained acceptance among the art community. The example in the musical arts of John Cage's piece is surely no more than whimsy, a practical joke played by a musician on a very small group of people who were apparently taken in by his joke. For apart from those people, surely it is universally accepted that "no music" cannot constitute "music". I think the intellectual foundation of musical arts is rather more sound than that of the visual arts. The difference between "food as art" and "the arts" is surely this. Food is primarily intended to be just that --- a means of feeding people. "Great food" is designed to meet that criterion and also to provide pleasure, whether emotional or carnal. Whereas art is only art, it need serve no other primary purpose than to exist for itself. Art need only stir the emotions of the artist. It's ability to stir the observer may be accidental, and the emotion of the observer may be quite different from that of the artist. Perhaps the only comparison that can be made is just that food is sometimes art, but art is always art.

Oh boy, Bapi, I'm jealous Please let me know how you find Sharrow Bay, because that's on my distinctly-probable-list for May (March sounds a bit chilly there for me).

That's a fine summary, Simon. I like that.

Adam, those are interesting figures you produced. Thanks for that. Do they not say more about the healthiness of the food that people eat than about their interest in food ? I accept that poorer people will spend less on food, and that cheaper food is often less healthy. But I'm not convinced there is any strong correlation between "healthy" and "good quality" or "interesting". It seems to me that a huge proportion of "gourmet" food contains large amounts of butter, which is considered very unhealthy. Similarly, animal fat is much prized by some gourmets. Frying is perfectly acceptable within the gourmet context of "good food" isn't it ? As is sugar. Of course it is accepted that those gourmet foods which are determined by rarity, such as caviar and truffles and Kobe steak, are automatically denied to poorer people. But even that doesn't stop them being interested in it.

I am in total agreement with Suzanne and Liziee on this. A successful restaurateur is in most respects the same as a successful businessman, ore top manager, in any sphere of commerce. There is an important truth in Suzanne's suggestion that the restaurant industry is closely analagous to show business, and that may create some extremes of success and failure, and also render the dividing line between the two very narrow. The most publicly successful managers and businessman in all spheres of activity have "charisma". They also have a clear perception of what their customers want, and they are hugely motivated to deliver just that. They are open to new ideas, and willing to take risks. All of that was/is just as true of Arnold Weinstock or Richard Branson or Tom Watson or Bill Gates as it is of Terence Conran or Alain Ducasse or (dare I say it?) Colonel Sanders The transfer from chef to restaurateur should surprise no-one. Most creative managers who rise to the top of the tree are motivated to take total control of their environment, and the use of their skills. Most of the great entrepreneurs rose through the ranks of their business, and then took control or started up their own. Why would chefs be any different ? That is not to say that a high proportion will succeed, but nor do they in other industries. Peter's Principle applies nowhere as strongly as it does in that final leap into the unknown where people start to work for themselves. Indeed, given the importance (especially in fine dining) of the element of show business razzmatazz, I guess that the degree of entrepreneurial risk in the restaurant industry is higher than most. Shortcomings in one key element of any business can often be overcome by exceptional performance of another. That surely is true of restaurants. Brilliant food may be sufficient to overcome poor service, but not appalling service. Food is obviously the sine qua non of a restaurant, but what is it about the food that generates a successful restaurant ? The answer is that it varies hugely according to the marketplace, time and fashion, and of course the "other" elements that are provided to surround the food. Chef ownership is, therefore, not related to the success or failure of a restaurant. But equally it is no bar to success. Some chefs will make great restaurateurs, some not. I cannot believe that any chef has become great without the benefit of a great restaurateur, but I can believe the reverse.

Interesting point about Vegas, Simon, and it occurs to me that the idea of attaching celebrity names to restaurants is very much an American thing. In Myrtle Beach (very much a golf resort) I have found Sam Snead's Grill, Greg Norman's Grill, Ben Hogan's Seafood Restaurant and so on. None of those golfers is a reputed chef and some of them are actually very dead but somehow the Americans seem to place a commercial benefit on the use of their name. It's an established procedure in New York to try to establish some restaurants as "celebrity watching" places. The reviews contain more about who (allegedly) eats there than what food they serve. Planet Hollywood was founded on the principle. Generally, with the exception of The Ivy, I don't believe that restaurant-goers are impressed or as influenced by star hysteria.

I said this somewhere else, but .... anyway, I'll say it again People's resentment of elitism lies not in the recognition that there are some people who know more than them about a particular subject, but in the arrogation by some people of their own divine right to pontificate on subjects about which they know a little, and their denial of the right of comment or criticism by others whome they believe to be inferior. So it's the arrogance and bigotry that often seeps into the mentality of elitists that causes a problem. It is also then often the case that the arrogance and bigotry spread into areas of non-exoertise, so that the elitist assumes a position of superiority in all things over all "lesser" people. Gary's and Adam's view of the population is truly starting to sound elitist. The notion that the 59million or so people in Britain who don't post on eGullet are thereby likely to eat worse than those who do is certainly arrogant, and that perspective might indeed classify as elitist under my definition above. The lie to the tenet is given by observations such as the volume of food sales by Marks & Spencer, by the proportion of high quality and speciality foods sold by the big supermarket chains, by the per capita expenditure on food in the UK, by the increasing popularity of organic foods, by the rapid increase in restaurant revenues in the UK over the past 15 years and the visible improvement in quality of those restaurants, and so on. The image of the uneducated plodder delighting over tripe on toast in a mean cottage in a Yorkshire village is an ancient and class-ridden image. Those who believe that their separation from this image places them in an elite are self-delusionary.

I totally agree with you, Tony. It's cynical, it's a scam. The good news, however, is that it's probably commercial suicide The British (and especially the London) public are not as easily conned as this, and I'm certain they'll vote with their credit cards. I'm not even sure I'd want to be taken by someone else It would embarrass me that they were bering taken in, and if I had a choice I'd quickly suggest they spend the same money at RHR or wherever.

Adam, when you first disclosed this (presumably East European) practice of cooking peasants, I thought it was a typo. Now you have me seriously worried .... I do not doubt that the general eating habits of the population fall below those of eGullet members. I just don't believe they're anywhere near as primitive as Gary was suggesting.

Hello Fresh_a How do you obtain those "impossible" table reservations, or theatre or opera tickets ? Is there a special concierge's grapevine, or do you have contacts with "scalpers", or do you use big agencies ? Or does your hotel maintain special relationships with any of these establishments ?