Lesley C

Now I'm interested, let's start a new thread..

Quick reply to this because i don't have much time right now. Give it a year. A lot is changing in the city. But the future looks bright in Montreal, if only becuase of the number of talented young cooks coming up the ranks. I can give you a dozen names of talented up-and-comers. Can you say the same for Toronto or Vancouver? I was at Europea last week and every seat was filled on a week night. The week before I was at Nuances and it was packed, and a few weeks before that Bronte was doing good business also. Fine-dining is not finished in this city.

Pioneer's of that dish? I don't think so. But I'd have to look back to see. Might make a good topic for a story.

No, I have eaten there many many times. It's a restaurant I enjoy greatly, with a chef I admire greatly. But that dish was better when they opened. Last time I had it there in the spring, it wasn't so hot. Even the sauce wasn't applied with the same amount of care. I actually wrote a story about this topic so I know why chefs do it. I just think they could mix it up a bit. For example, the chef in question, had a signature dish at the last restaurant he opened. It was a wild mushroom tart and it was great. But he would change it around every so often to give it new life, and it worked. I have spoken to this chef about this, I understand why he keeps it there, and respect his decision because he's a smart, super cool guy. I said my bit and we have gotten so off topic here it hurts. So back to Liverpool House....

Oh God what have I gotten myself into here... Look Joe, it doesn't matter what I think. If you like it, you like it. More power to you. I'm not asking Gibby's to mix it up, but an argument could be made that an "innovative" restaurant should actually be innovative. And if chefs settled on things that merely "sold" they would all be serving filet mignon and creme brulee. And as for those scallops with lemon compote, the ones I ate tasted miles better the first time I sampled them, which to me says that maybe someone in the kitchen is a little tired of making them.

Actally, in my experience, a dish that flops is often tha menu classic that once tasted great and now tastes tired. And yes I agree a good dish is a good dish and a flop is a flop, no matter how new or old.

True, but should that signature dish fester on the menu for ever? And what if the majority of the menu consists of signature dishes?

There's another issue here and that is how long does a restaurant take to hit its stride. I thoroughly enjoyed Joe Beef when i first dined there but I think the food is quite different today (someone correct me if I'm wrong). It takes a while for a restaurant to settle, but here we are, all the critics and bloggers, jumping on these places just because they're new. If I weren't so desperate for new restaurants I'd wait a while to go, just to give them a chance to weed out the duds on the menu and fix the ventilation system .

Yeah, chefs should realize that molten chocolate cake has now dropped down to a dinner party dessert. And most of them out there are terrible. Actually most Montreal restaurant desserts are terrible. But that's another thread...

Considering the fact that both JB and LH change the menu so often, I think it's only normal that not every dish can be a hit. For that reason I think they should be judged differently, and praised for taking risks. Too many Montreal restaurants play it safe. I understand why, but those seared scallops with lemon compote (not naming any names here) are getting pret-ty boring.

I've read the pre-release, but I can't post it here until the last week of November. Sorry. Looks good though. Many excellent TO chefs coming, save for Mark McKewan, who I thought would have made a good fit at the Casino.

Actually I would think it's often the opposite. As a newspaper restaurant critic I feel I have to limit the "foodie talk" (or my editors tell me to) because my audience comprises both seasoned restaurant goers who understand words like brunoise and brandade, and people who think of Shake & Bake as a celebratory dinner. You're also writing for readers who may glance at the restaurant review only in passing. The blogger, however, is someone you seek out. And if you're doing that seeking, chances are food is your focus. Also, as is the case with the paper I write for, we have two critics: one for fine-dining and one for casual. So there's something for both taco lovers and sea-urchin-foam aficinados.

Actually the more interesting story here is to see how Lumiere and Feenie's will fare without Feenie. Rob Feenie opens another restaurant in Vancouver and the place is filled yesterday. But it would be fun to see Feenie head to TO instead.

Wait a minute...seeing Chopper's post here reminded me, Brasserie Brunoise opened this year!

I am not a fan of these awards. I only contributed the first year. And it was certainly my last. I love Sarah Musgrave, but her beat is casual, not fine dining (though maybe she gets out to more expensive restaurants than I'm aware of). That said, I can't think of many new restaurants that opened this year in Montreal that wowed -- but that's just off the top of my head. Wasn't the Trois Petits Bouchons also on the top twenty? Excellent restaurant, that. The food there is superb and the wine service is great. I'm sure I'm not thinking of others. Does anyone know when the cut off date of the judging was on this?

Shocking. My guess would be that they will lose the Relais Gourmand accreditation over this. Change of chef, that seems reason enough. Still, this is hardly the end of Rob Feenie. But my heart goes out to the guy. Yet another sad story of a chef who can't manage the books.

OK, let's clear things up. After doing this for eight years I can honestly say I know many, many chefs. I have to. I'm a freelance writer and i have to make a living. HOWEVER, just because I chat with a chef does not mean I have them over to my house for dinner, go out partying with them or that he or she is shown any favouritism. I could list a ton of chefs I've chatted with who have ended up with less-than-stellar reviews (Martin Picard, Eric Gonzalez, Racha Bassoul, Marino Tavares), and I could list a ton of chefs I haven't said a word to who got great reviews (Juni, Roberto Stabile, Alexandre Gosselin, Louis-Francois Marcotte). Really, if anything I think they might think we're "friendly" and then be surprised to see a two-star review. And as I've noted a million times before, I even criticized my husband's desserts, and I've been married to him for 17 years. Look, get used to it, all the reviewers know some chefs. Robert Beauchemin does, Philippe Molle does, Marie-Claude Lortie does, and Jean-Philippe Tastet and Francoise Keller certainly did. I, for one maybe, have only one chef out there I consider a close friend, whom I've known for over a decade. I can't live in a bubble and ignore chefs. I have to interview them often for other stories (for the Gazette and other publications), which means I've spoken to many of the city's top chefs on the phone for hours on end. Anyone who regularly reads what I write, knows I often quote chefs in my Critic's Notebook column and other features. Where do you think those quotes come from? The challenge is to set aside that relationship for a review and focus on the restaurant. I'm there for the readers, to tell them what to expect. My job is not to help promote a chef and/or the restaurant. And as for your accusation of people knowing I would be there in advance, the only thing I can imagine is that they recognize the name I book under, or that they might of seen my name on the phone, something I always make an effort to block. Why they knew I was coming in advance is a mystery to me.

Angela Lansbury!

I know one critic, a woman who was considered the Grande Dame of Montreal restaurant reviewing -- very influential and very feared -- who told me she was given the restaurant reviewing assignment back in the sixites for two reasons: she was a woman and she was from France.

Steven I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about the number of times a critic visits one restaurant (which to me is often a huge waste of time) but the number of restaurants visited. Those bankers and lawyers probably aren't checking out every new place that opens as well as the old ones still hanging on by a thread , something a reviewer must do. Also, I think your opinion is based solely on the New York scene, where people dine out A LOT. In a city like mine, I know of no one who regularly dines out five times a week. If the New York bloggers are strong, great. But I can't say I've read any blog covering my city's fine dining beat that I consider essential reading. Interesting, yes, but essential or influential, no.

I did not run write that piece in the Gazette, but I am the Gazette’s restaurant critic. As someone who has so-called “credentials” (with certain people at least) I can say that yes, they make a difference. I think you have to have spent at least some time in a professional kitchen to understand how a restaurant works. Yet ultimately experience on the beat is what makes a critic worthwhile. It takes a while to get good at this, and there’s something to be said for tasting most every risotto in the city before evaluating yet another. I know of no bloggers in my city who eat out frequently enough to have a strong grasp of the scene. I wouldn’t have thought that when I started out, but after eight years at it, I understand that longevity is a critic’s true strength, seeing restaurants come and go, watching chefs evolve, determining whether international trends are influencing the scene, etc. Many bloggers I read tend to head out to the “branché” restaurants and post the occasional review when they’re up to it. I have to go everywhere, 50 weeks a year, and I eat a lot of seriously lousy meals. And those lousy meals are important because they make me appreciate the good ones all the more. I recently interviewed two of Montreal’s best food bloggers, whose focus isn’t so much on restaurants as food culture. To my surprise they told me their ultimate goal was to switch to print. And an excellent sommelier and wine blogger, Bill Zacharkiw, was recently named the Gazette’s wine columnist. He hasn’t posted an entry in his blog since the paper published his first column. (The flip side to this is that every food writer I know is now panic-stricken about getting some kind of web presence going, mainly the almighty blog.) As for restaurant critic requirements and credentials, I know many restaurant critics, some with extensive professional cooking credentials who are eyebrow-raisingly corrupt, some with no credentials (and it shows), and some who are respected more for their writing than their opinion. But at the very least, shouldn’t the public be reading a review by someone with some expertise in the field rather than someone who just loooves to dine out? Music critics need not be musicians, but if they are just music lovers why would anyone who shares their level of interest care what they have to say? Of course, there's the way you say it. As Jay Rayner writes on the Guardian blog regarding this topic, “The fact is that newspaper restaurant critics are not employed to sell restaurants. They are employed to sell newspapers, and what editors therefore need from us is the ability to write a readable, entertaining column week in week out. Food knowledge or an understanding of restaurants comes a distant second.” So I guess that’s why Rayner runs his menacing mug next to his posts, as if he’s saying, screw all the formalities, we’re really just here to be outrageous, strut our stuff and give people something to talk about at the pub. OK, but if you’re going to do that, why even use the review as a backdrop? Why not just run a Dave Barry-style column? I bet Dave Barry sold a lot more papers than Giles Coren. Ultimately, a reviewer should A) be an entertaining writer -- a la A A Gill or Alan Richman -- in order to get those papers moving B) have some cooking background to gain a minimum of respect from the foodies and the chefs C) have experience on the beat to really understand the scene D) not be corrupt (whatever that means on any given day in the restaurant world). Tall order, it seems, but look at the best in the business and you’ll see that’s just what they’re doing. More power to ‘em, I say, whether it be on a blog or in print.

Wait, doesn't everyone eat liver there standing around in a swimming pool?

Both excellent restaurants, but not in the same class as Toque! Anise before, yes, but not so much now (though still worth a trip). Cocagne is a fancy bistro, if a "bistro" at all. There's also a question of the wine lists, which are less expansive at these establishments.

Haven't set foot in the place since they opened. Last time I ate there it was Ru de Nam. But I look forward to seeing what they serve.

It's called Liverpool House. And David McMillan is not doing the cooking, so there Considering the general low level of Italian restaurant food in this city, Liverpool House, though not solely Italian, could easily come out on top if only for making an effort to be original.