Wilfrid

Very much my experience with the Ramones' first album. As for the marketing/subsidy argument, as his Lordship would say: I'm sorry, you've lost me.

You're quite sure we're not shifting things around in order to get the results you prefer? I should have thought Bob Dylan would find it a doddle to get his next album subsidized by fans in the unlikely event he couldn't get a record deal. But of course that's why he isn't in that position Opera as we know it would perish without subsidies from a relatively small number of wealthy people and organizations - I don't know how you infer anything about the excellence of any particular opera from that statement. If anything, it supports my contention that opera is hardly a thriving art form. Note to self: remember to look for the complexity in simple things.

It's necessary both to agree and disagree with Steve. I think two of Steve's theses have always sat a little uncomfortably together: on the one hand that performance in the marketplace gives a measure of excellence, but on the other that such performance can't be assessed in terms of units shifted or profitability. The problem is that, on the one hand Steve wants to champion the marketplace as where the good really gets separated out from the bad; but on the other, he appreciates commodities which appeal to a small, albeit discerning, audience. Lenny Tristano doesn't perform in the marketplace better than Jean-Michel Jarre by any criterion, but those who have heard of him know he's a better musician. Steve, maybe you have a way of reconciling these positions? I would take the consensus of an informed audience over the marketplace any day.

I am sceptical about the line of argument that this isn't a burger. It looks like a burger, it largely feels like a burger, and it even sort of tastes like a burger. If they served a good beefy patty with the truffles and foie gras all on top, instead of the bacon and cheese, that'd be a burger, wouldn't it? It's really very burger-like. As for the cost, I work backwards. $50 indeed seems about right, if the price of $29 without the extra truffles is right. Is it? Well, how much is a burger at the 21 Club? How much were people paying at Patroon and Mortimer's? And the $29 burger includes some truffles and foie gras. Maybe I'm going mad, but it doesn't all seem so terrible.

A very clearly reasoned post indeed. So Bob Dylan is better than Monteverdi, at least? Dunno if he's outsold Mozrt. Probably.

Perhaps we are just missing each other slightly. I'm trying to say that complexity can't be correlated in any simple way with excellence. In other words, the more complex it is the better it is, is not a plausible position. Otherwise we'd never have stopped serving chickens stuffed with five kinds of forcemeat, with truffles under the skin and garnished with coxcombs, sweetbreads and langoustines, all cooked in a different way, and surrounded by a mighty reduction of a sauce. And I suppose my other point is that an increase in complexity is not always beneficial. That's the point I was trying to make with the Dylan and Ramones analogies. If Dyaln's songs - and singing style - were restructured according to operatic principles, they'd lose their virtues. So too, I suspect, would simple but good dishes in the hands of some highly rated chefs. I wonder if the Ramones will survive as long as Mozart? He's one of the relative handful of composers whose operas are performed with any regularity. Most operas were long ago consiugned to the dustbin of history. And I tell you what: I'd rather have ten per cent of Britney Spears than of Monteverdi.

I think there's all kinds of standards by which opera has not stood the test of time as an art form. A handful of people are working in that genre; one simply has the remnants of a historical canon enjoyed by a vociferous but numerically small audience. But why not address the question in terms of food? It seems clear that an amazing amount of complex technique went into classic dishes of haute cuisine which we rarely see nowadays, and which we'd find too rich and over-elaborated. By the way, if this thread is about something else, please ignore me...

I do get downsold often enough, and that's a surefire winner if a restaurant wants me to think of eating there again. Quite recently, I was perusing a wine list which offered several 1999 burgundies from the same village. The prices were different, but not extravagantly so. I only recognized one of the producers, so I asked the sommelier which of the wines he would recommend. If he'd picked the one at the top of the price range (he didn't), that would have been upselling by the definition on offer here (the Shaw definition, let's say). It would never have occurred to me to think of it as upselling. Upselling would be the sommelier turning the pages and showing me his vertical of La Tache instead. Whether I'm out of step with the marketing literature or not, I don't feel I am being upsold unless there's some scale involved and some hint of intent. I think I'm largely immune to it, anyway. Come to think of it, about the most common piece of upselling I come across is "'Ow about a nice glass of champagne?" as I arrive at the table. Silly really.

I salute your erudition, Steve. Simplicity is a theory's hallmark of excellence in many disciplines. Formal complexity does not correlate with excellence either in thinking or in cooking.

You should write a book about these bars, Stella.

I've been hugged by Tommy. It's overrated.

When am I supposed to find the time to read this thread? Looks so interesting, too. Fresh from Jaybee's original post, let me throw in the comment that one inconvenience of my own steadily raised culinary expectations is that I now frequently reject food which I would once have been content to consume just as fuel. I really won't eat garbage any more, unless I'm about to faint. And I speak as someone who has rejected several airplane meals and a ground-based attempt at fried chicken in just the last few days. Since I am probably going to agree with Steve about the concept of one thing being "better" than another - a concept regularly deployed in their daily lives by all those who express scepticism about it here - let me turn to one an old bugbear: "while I am not an opera fan, I can tell you that the technique on display at the opera wipes Bob Dylan off the table. That isn't a matter of opinion, that is a fact " What you still don't get, Steve, is that this fact is not indicative of a failing on the part of Dylan. Not unless you think his performances would be better if they incorporated many operatic techniques. This is such an important point. Dylan wouldn't be better as Dylan if he was more operatic. The Ramones could not have improved their albums by learning from Mozart. And - back to food - not every dish in the culinary canon is improved by complicated elaboration. If it was, you'd have loved eating at the Forum of the Twelve Caesars (maybe you did?).

I think it's a bit of hybrid, in the sense that while there may be separate kitchens, a lot of the pre-made stuff on the menu, like the excellent charcuterie and salumi, are coming out of the Craft kitchen. The menu is a little too short, I agree, but I've found the food okay.

I despair of dealing with questions of this complexity in this format. Drama perplexes me: I just don't know where the art work known as "Hamlet" is, when we have numerous versions of the play from Shakespeare and his editors and countless interpretative performances of it. However, Robert, I think if there is an art work in gastronomy it has to be what's on the plate. However, one could doubtless construct an intricate analysis of the aesthetic experience as an intersection of the cook's intentions and execution, the flavor of the food, and the nature of the diner's physiological and phenomenological responses to the food - Wollheim's analysis of the aesthetic experience of painting is similarly multi-faceted. But not today (sigh).

Uh huh. And then there are crumpets. Someone will tell you the difference, I'm sure.

And it's literature, so who can object? Your Grace, being appraised of your views on excessive creativity among modern chefs, I commend the Villas book. You could well have written the final pages yourself.

Of course not offended. Haven't I called you that before?

They were in the patty, not shaved on top. But in almost indiscernible quantities. Or are you saying they weren't there?

Step aside, sis. On second thoughts, I'll take the Aussie bug-botherer, you deal with the boxer.

Go on. Move the goal posts!

Has anyone noticed that the common factor in these reality shows is the high degree of artificiality. Fake bachelors, fake restaurants. I am not getting it. A serious documentary about Union Pacific might be interesting.

Loads of offal especially. Oh sorry, you said Adam...

Then we can infer what Yorkshire pudding is called in Yorkshire, I suppose. I was just observing that it's not unheard of for regional specialities to bear the name of the region even when they're served in the region. If you see what I mean.

Re-reading James Villas, Between Bites. So candid and opinionated. It would make a great discussion book, if we ever do that again.