LPShanet

Sifty throws M. Wells the deuce: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/dining/reviews/06rest.html?emc=eta1

Thanks. Spring was one of the places I had mentioned to him, but I wasn't sure it was open yet. Anyone else?

With all due respect to the current crop of competitors, I don't think they have quite the stature of the first two seasons, and the format may have something to do with it. The format of Seasons 1 & 2 required most of the chefs to be away from their kitchens for only a few days; and then, only the handful that made it to the finale had a second, slightly longer stint away from home. The current format requires all the chefs to commit to being away for however long it takes fro the whole season to be shot. Of course, regular Top Chef works the same way, but for chefs without a lot of name recognition, the opportunity to win that show is well worth it. The trade-off for someone like a Hubert Keller, a Rick Bayless, a Wylie Dufresne, or an Anita Lo, is very different. Could not agree more, Marc. In fact, I think you're being much more diplomatic than I would have been. The first season featured mostly chefs whom any self-respecting foodie would have been quite familiar with long before the show, and almost all truly deserved the "Master" title. They were mostly real all-stars of the restaurant world, and were people who had a real impact on the food world at a national or international level. The second season had a number of chefs of that level, and a few not quite so deserving of the Master moniker, but it was still a group who were at least influential. This season, however, boasts one or two somewhat boldface names, a few local/regional names, and a few head scratchers. It's a major drop off in quality, and I wonder if Bravo just can't get the real stars of cuisine to do the show any more. Certainly the new format, while more watchable in some ways, has hurt the level of the competition to a point where a number of the contestants on the regular Top Chef can be said to be of a higher level than some of the so-called "Masters".

Gotta disagree with you on the food credibility thing. Although Rocco has certainly trashed all that remains of his original credibility, his cooking cred before deciding to become a celebrity was definitely greater in objective terms than Stone's. Those who lived in NY while Rocco was a chef (and before he was seen on TV) will remember him as the Exec Chef/Partner of the very highly rated Union Pacific, which was on almost every foodie's map, and served really great food. His cooking was innovative, skillful and current, and he was considered a real rising star in the food world. That all went to hell once he opened Rocco's on TV, and it's been a sad downhill path since, but those who ate at his places prior to going show biz see him as a great squandered talent, not a poseur. Many in the food world (including Bourdain) wish fervently for him to return to a restaurant kitchen. Also, Rocco's training included Bouley, Lespinasse, River Cafe and Aureole during its prime. He put in over 10 years at various stations in good restaurants before getting his own place. He was a real chef. Stone cooked in some real restaurants, but his resume was definitely less impressive than Rocco's as a chef. Still, it would seem most of the female viewers think Stone is prettier, which counts for quite a bit on the Bravo tube. The comparison to Flay also isn't really apt, as Flay cooked in and owned several highly rated restaurants before going show biz. He also is credited with either creating or at least popularizing a whole style of current cooking. Stone is credited with working a few chef gigs and having cool hair.

A friend of mine is in Paris for a bit, and already has plans to visit some serious food destinations. However, he's looking for a place to go Friday, that has a cool/hip vibe, with good food, and maybe a lounge kind of atmosphere with music, etc., that's open late-ish. Having not been to Paris for a few years, I thought I'd pick the brains of the eGulleters on his behalf. Your suggestions are appreciated. p.s. Someone apparently recommended Bizart to him, but I've never been, so couldn't confirm or deny whether it was an apt suggestion. Anyone?

Actually, the attitude you've described is one I think most would called open-minded. Your willingness to eat them if served, or even just to allow for the possibility that one you like might exist somewhere in the universe both suggest you're very open-minded. This is a contrast when compared to those who simply won't allow for the idea that it might be possible to create one that eliminates the objectionable qualities (which as far as I can determine from the entries in this thread stem mostly from bubble size, which is clearly a continuum and not something with a hard line).

My apologies if I wasn't able to be clear, but my point wasn't that disliking any particular food item is ethically equivalent to racism. Let me try to clarify further: I was responding to the statement someone made that foam (in the modernist sauce sense) was like dog spit while whipped cream was a beautiful, sexy substance. Obviously, it is easy to make a foam sauce with the exact consistency of whipped cream, so this seemed confusing. There are many foam sauces that have been made that way, and that have the exact consistency that people laud so highly in the whipped cream. At the same time, the world has seen a pretty wide variety of things that have been called whipped cream. Some of them are truly disgusting in texture in ways far worse than dog spit. And it's fairly easy to imagine that there's whipped cream out there with the exact consistency that's been described as being so awful in foam sauces. I've eaten it. It exists. So it seemed to me unfair and inaccurate that someone would dismiss all foam sauces as having one specific texture (that is awful), and praise the entire whipped cream category as having one specific texture that is wonderful. Technically, whipped cream IS a foam sauce. It's simply an innocuous one that many people are comfortable with. The racism analogy was based on the idea that racism is often described as attributing specific qualities (intelligence, stupidity, laziness, good/bad smell, criminality, athleticism, etc.) to an entire race, rather than recognizing the varying degrees of those qualities in individual members. And it seemed that the specific qualities of a few particular foam sauce experiences were being attributed to the entire category, rather than recognizing that different individual examples might have very different textures. I wasn't suggesting for a second that people who disliked a particular food item were actual racists, and I think that's pretty obvious. But to assume that all foam sauces have one specific consistency and that all are objectionable in the exact same way, while all whipped cream is great is also irrational. The analogy does stand in the terms explained. I assume you don't actually think I was saying that sauces are being exploited, as I think it's pretty clear that makes no sense. And I wasn't making a morality statement. While I apologize if the analogy offended, it really is important to understand I was making an analogy and not applying a moral equivalency...or any statement about ethics at all. This is food, not sociology. When we say that something "kills our tastebuds", we aren't actually assuming people or beings are dying rather than sensory reactions being blunted. In terms of fact, foam sauces are not a modernist technique at all. They have been around for hundreds of years. Whipped cream is one of them. So while your comparison to someone who hates spicy or sweet foods isn't parallel, we can use a similar example that is. Saying that foam sauce is disgusting dog spit, but that whipped cream is glorious, sexy and beautiful is like saying that all kinds of hot sauce are disgusting and inedible, but that Tabasco sauce is delicious. Or that candy and sweets are disgusting across the board and repulsive to eat, but that Lifesavers are beautiful and delicious. It seems biased and seems to create a logic gap.

So why don't "foam 'haters'" dislike "traditional" foams just as much as modernist ones? I have yet to see a cogent explanation of why whipped cream on pumpkin pie is acceptable, but bone marrow foam on steak is not. I just don't see a fundamental difference between the two. Your stated reasons upthread for disliking foam are that: Because one looks like whipped cream (which is unctuous and lovely and, well *creamy*) and the other looks like something my dogs hork up after they've been eating grass.... Which is most certainly NOT unctuous and lovely and creamy. Nor is it something I choose to put in my mouth. What's that line about "eating with your eyes as much as your mouth...."? If it looks like dog barf, *I* don't want to eat it. If you do, groovy. Enjoy your foams and airs and spumas (that *word* even sounds gross). But don't force it on me. And don't tell me I'm a dolt, or unsophisticated, or a rube, or somehow less than you, or not into good food and spirits because I don't share your taste. This seems a bit biased, as there is no reason foam sauces can't be produced with that texture, and there are plenty of whipped cream applications with objectionable textures. In fact, I've had foam sauces with unctuous, creamy textures. And I've had nasty whipped cream that was more sticky than "lovely". Again, it seems to come down to execution and the open-mindedness of the eater. After all, lauding all whipped cream as lovely, and dismissing all foam sauces as looking like something one's dog coughs up is the food equivalent of racism...as if neither side is capable of the qualities of the other.

A frustrating one for me is txacoli (wine) from Spain's basque region. It's very versatile and goes with all kinds of food. In Spain, it's about 7-8 Euros a bottle. The same brand here is anywhere from $35 - 60. Not cool.

It seems to me that foams get so much hate because they are a symbol. They are the way that many people have chosen to quickly encapsulate the modernist cuisine/molecular gastronomy movement. There was no huge polarization of opinion on foam prior to its use in that context. No one was yelling at others about foam on coffee 20 years ago....you either ordered it or you didn't. But since the modernist cuisine movement is in itself so polarizing, foam has become the punchline, poster child and mascot for the entire movement, and the strong opinions on it are often reflective of strong opinions on the cooking style overall, though not always. Because of their light, frivolous appearance (and the fact that some have expressed a distaste for the way they look), they are an easy conceptual target. However, in my personal opinion, the real point of foams, and their real purpose, has been glossed over in this discussion. Ferran Adria, Juan Mari Arzak and others didn't adopt them because they were trying to shock people, or make any point or introduce a novelty. Like most techniques in modernist cuisine, they were introduced for practical reasons. They served a specific purpose in the flavor profile of the dishes they were a part of. They were used because they could infuse a dish with subtle flavor elements that were much lighter in presence than a traditional sauce. They could introduce points and counterpoints that didn't take over the dish, but contributed a "translucent" (conceptually not literally) layer to the flavors. This thought process and the execution of the original intention are absolutely important contributions to cooking and the way chefs conceive dishes, and ought to be respected even if they're not liked. As with most modernist techniques, when they are used by lesser talents, or in situations where the technique exists just for its own sake rather than to accomplish something, then they strike an ugly chord. But when used with a purpose that only a specific technique can accomplish, they are smart, delicious advancements in the way we cook at eat. Just like sous vide, liquid nitrogen freezing or any other modernist trope, foams can be used for good or evil, and like any such technique, it all comes down to whose hands they are put in (which can also be said for more traditional cooking techniques).

Those are definitely some of the best and most important stops on your trip. In addition to Pinotxo, the counter at El Quim in the Boqueria was also really good. If you have time to do both, you should. But Pinotxo is probably my fave, and the people there are so warm and wonderfully fun. Cal Pep, likewise, is lots of fun, and the spirit (and freshness) are great. Cal Pep is more of a lunch place, but the bars at Boqueria can be done for breakfast, which is a great option. However, none of them really fit with the modernist theme you mentioned. Also, if you're feeling really gluttonous, a multi-course dessert tasting at Espai Sucre can be a highlight of any trip. Very jealous of your trip, especially since Nathan M is a fascinating guy, and would be a good addition to anyone's fantasy dinner table list. Enjoy! p.s. If there's any way you have any time to stay in Roses for lunch the day after El Bulli, go to Rafa's for a seafood experience you won't forget.

At there a few weeks ago, and have to concur with your findings. Exactly what you'd expect/hope for from Denton. It's pretty tough for them to stand out any more these days, though, with so many other places doing the same category so well. Ten years ago I never thought I'd find myself saying that NY had a glut of good rustic Italian fare!

Is it possible to post the list? (Translated, of course)

Somehow we got onto convection and other "fancified" microwave ovens, but I have a hunch that FG was referring to standard issue microwaves. That said, at the risk of sounding like a boor, I think the microwave makes a pretty darn good cob of corn, either for eating straight or prepping for other dishes that require cooked or partially cooked corn. Less trouble and mess than boiling or roasting, and in the right cases, not much of a tradeoff.

It was described as "dairy-free, egg-free." Yes, they use fat elements from pistachios themselves in place of any milkfat or egg. So it is truly vegan by standard definitions. Can't swear that there are absolutely no animals involved in the production of all elements at any stage, since you can't even say that about most vegan food, but for all practical purposes, it's definitely vegan. And still yummy...who woulda thunk.

Re: Noodletown - I really only order a few things here and those remain fairly stellar. The roast suckling pig, other roasted meats over rice, and the various wonton/noodle soups. I also avoid it when it's totally slammed. Re: Dim sum - totally agree. My dim sum in Manhattan is limited to 5 for $1 dumplings at Prosperity. And once in a blue moon at Chinatown Brasserie. Sad, huh? Very sad about the dim sum, especially when other cities (like Toronto) have a surfeit of good places. Maybe we can import some of their people, eh?

The problem is that there isn't a place in Chinatown these days with good dim sum. There are several that on a given day might rate a B, but no one is consistent and no one stands out right now. On a non dim sum note, I had the impression that NY Noodletown isn't what it used to be either, and that there are a lot of dishes there to be avoided. Hoping to be shown otherwise by someone who knows of a great dim sum place in Chinatown, but so far all recommendations have met with the same middling results.

The Pongsri in Chinatown is much better than that one, so I'd agree with the above that Wondee is probably better than the 48th St. Pongsri. Subjective, of course. I've also heard some say they like Pam Real Thai in that area, though I haven't been personally, so can't vouch for it.

The first place that comes to mind is Cha An in the East Village. Not as "upscale" as Takashimaya was, but a good and fairly Japanese experience. Also, I believe that Nadaman Hakubai still does a Japanese tea service. Lastly, though I haven't been there, I know Ito En has a store on Madison, and they were planning on a pretty ambitious tea program. It might be worth checking them out and finding out what they offer.

Wow, the food sounds great, but that price seems a bit steep. That puts it above Ko, Brooklyn Fare and a number of the four star tasting menus in town. Do you think it's worth it compared to those?

It's definitely possible, but with a few caveats. Definitely try to get a reservation for PDT if you plan to go there. Going on a Friday night without one will most likely be a waste of your time. Ssam Bar doesn't takes reservations, so you're good there, though the earlier you go, the more likely you'll get in. The best way might be to do dinner first on the early side, and then have after-dinner drinks at PDT if you manage to get a reservation. Last time I checked, Death & Co didn't take reservations, and going there on a Friday could be tough if you don't want to wait. Again, going early could be helpful. And they have pretty good food/snacks there, too. If you go there early enough the wait isn't too bad, but you'll probably have a bit of one at Ssam. In the end, it may be up to how long you're willing to wait for each of them and whether you can snag a PDT res. Still, if you can deal with waiting a little bit, then it'll be well worth your while as all three places are great. One last thought is that you could try to drop into Ssam early before drinks and put your name down, getting an idea of how long it will be, and then head to Death & Co., knowing when to come back to get your table at Ssam as it comes up. Good luck!

Can't help you with the knives, but I can say with relative confidence that the crispy langoustines are unlikely to be changed, as they are considered a signature dish of the L'ateliers. He has always made them with brik dough.

I think the first place to start for street food carts would be to do a search online for recent nominees in the "Vendy Awards". Each year, some of the best food carts and wagons (e.g. the famous Biryani Cart, and the taco truck at 96th and B'way) compete for the title of "best" in various categories. Not all are deserving of the praise, but many are, and it's a good place to accumulate a list. Let us know if you have any trouble finding the Vendys.

My hypothesis in the other thread was pretty similar. I also cited the fact that many of the people eating there were either out-of-towners or recent transplants who preferred familiarity. When I was a kid, none of the national pizza chains could get a foothold because their products were so inferior. But with the large number of recent college graduates from out of town now living here, even Papa John's and Domino's seem to do pretty well.

I've thought a lot about this. Why would anyone in Philly buy subway dreck, when even Wawa makes a better product??? You can ask the same question about Domino's pizza or Papa John's. OK for the midwest perhaps; but in NY or Philly???? I think its because Subway has great locations that are convenient; and for many convenience trumps quality. It's also about advertising dollars, which sway the uncritical. Its also about the glop they put on their inferior meat and cheese. It hides a lot under spice and grease. Boar's Head has ads that address this trick. In New York, most of the fast food places, Subway included, are frequented by out of towners and those who recently moved here. That's how the dreadful pizza chains have finally gotten hold in a town where a reasonable pizza is available right next door. Newly transplanted folks are sometimes relieved to find the stuff they ate through college, especially when they don't know better.