Wilfrid

There's an image to treasure, Paul, thanks. There some notes of agreement between me and Steve, I agree, although I think we are miles apart when it comes to solutions. Lizziee"s post certainly helps focus the discussion (if I didn't say so before, I haven't eaten at Bouley) - sure, there are some departures from the mainstream here and there, but if you strip away the garnishes with which the chefs attempt to make the dishes seem innovative and intriguing, what a litany of sameness one finds: tuna, salmon, halibut, char, scallops, lobster; rack and loin of lamb, chicken, venison, squab breast, duck breast. And a significant preponderance of pan cooking (sear it on top of the stove then bung it in the oven). There are other meats and fishes, other cooking methods, other flavors and textures out there - and unlike Steve, I am speaking less of the wild frontiers of Spain than what one might find in French and even American menus (and cookbooks) of thirty or forty years ago. Lizziee, there is the question of competent execution also - put in my mind by the poor dinner at Lespinasse which started the train of thought. For the record, I can recall only one badly executed dish at Jean-Georges; at Daniel, the curse of Wilfrid struck - chilly roast pheasant. But I am not calling into question the competence of these kitchens across the board - more a sense of weariness in the cuisine. And Robert - like Steve you give good reasons for why things are as they are, perhaps implying there's nothing to be done. But again, my interest here - not that it need govern the thread - is not the economic and social whys and wherefores, but how we feel about the situation. (Good discussion, everyone, by the way.)

A valid contrarian view, I think. I would observe that they may be getting lazy with the buns. When I tried this some months ago, the bun was certainly Parmesan-flavored. I enjoyed the contrast of the meat textures. At the same time, I haven't rushed back to eat it a second time, which I guess says something. My view - a nice enough dish, but not the work of staggering genius some have claimed. As I remarked back then, it's a long time since Gary Rhodes started stuffing faggots with foie gras.

"I think that for a long time, cooking has been about manipulating textures to make things easier to eat. I doubt we will see that change. In fact techniques like foaming etc., move even further in the direction of changing the shape and form of food. " Mmm hmm. I understand it's happening, and I see lots of reasons why. Does anyone else want to raise their hand and say if they think it's good or bad in terms of what's on the plate (independently of whether it's inevitable or predictable or unavoidable). I am increasingly convinced it's bad. Liebling expressed a preference for flavors which "know their own mind". To the extent there is any room for improving Liebling, I might say flavors and textures . And I'm not writing in the abstract; I am burdened by the knowledge that the best way a "top" New York chef can serve three successive game birds on a game menu is the breast of each one cooked rare, the monotony broken only by wrapping one in cabbage leaf with some foie gras. Forty years ago, a chef at the Waldorf would have made a better fist of that menu.

Interesting that the discussion has developed in the direction of pondering why there is a lack of innovation at the high end of New York restaurants. Maybe that is the problem and I just have an idiosyncratic perception of it. I am not sure I want to see more innovation per se; at leadt, I don't assume that's going to lead to an overall improvement in my restaurant experience. What I think would improve matters is actually restoring the palette of flavors, textures and cooking techniques which have been driven out by the conservatism of the four star market (I guess - no-one seems to have contradicted that yet). Really, anyone participating in this should consider checking out the Grimes curated exhibit at NYPL. I remember Fat Bloke saying on the Craft thread a while back that the Craft approach, rather than being as revolutionary as coverage suggested, was actually a revival of an old menu style, where the diner would be confronted with a long list of meats, a long list of fish, several columns of vegetable sides, and so on. A revival of the carte in the true sense. I disagreed with Fat Bloke on the specifics (I said that on the old menus, one found long lists of made dishes, rather than of ingredients as at Craft). But now I wonder whether innovation and the recuperation of the best aspects of the past are mutually exclusive. Take a look at St John's in London. Either it's a radical, minimalist example of the new British cooking, or it's a revival of the cuts and garnishes and cooking styles of Victorian England. I think it's a bit of both in fact. I think a chef who could embrace more challenging ingredients at the high level (not just weirder garnishes) and broaden the range of kitchen techniques to include more stewing, braising, and boiling, would enhance my New York dining experience. And to be fair, there are patches of such activity in evidence, aren't there? The odd pork belly (or fresh bacon) at Gramercy Tavern, the occasional outbreak of braising at Ouest, some fine galantines and ballotines at Craft. Good thing too.

Yuengling's Black and Tan is worth leaving alone. I discovered that last night. Thin and acrid.

I probably wouldn't have known that there was no exciting new theater anywhere, let alone in New York. Thanks for keeping tabs on this stuff, Steve.

I think they (broad sweep here) are innovating - and too much - at a superficial level. I repeatedly find menus where the same old suspects - beef filet, rack of lamb, etc - are decked out with odd garnishes or unexpected spices or overfussy sides. Because the customers must always have the illusion of being at the cutting-edge. My example here is always the roast duck with mediaeval spices and individual purees of several different root vegetables at JoJo. Now, maybe Jean-Georges invented the dish and it's a bad example of what young chefs might do - but I found myself wishing for a really good roast duck, served at the proper temperature, and one well-cooked recognizable vegetable, rather than the uninteresting, lukewarm plate I was served. Why are they not innovating at the deep level - i.e. ingredients and techniques? I guess because their first job is to put those big-spending upper middle bums on seats frequently enough for the restaurants not to go bust. So, on the one hand, no Paul Liebrandt making curried cod with cherry foam - and on the other hand, no-one serving civet of wild duck.

Nice report, David. That roast fat back sounds good!

I should acknowledge Bux's point about several different styles of meat preparation on the same plate. I welcome that, at least, and am reminded of the excellent braised guinea fowl leg served alongside the breast at Bid. Got to have that breast filet in there, though. Without addressing whether Steve's explanation of how we have got to where we are is right or not, I think it's still valid to ask whether we are satisfied with the status quo. The twin experiences this week of reviewing old menus at the NYPL and having a let-down dinner at Lespinasse sharpen my sense that variety and adventure are now at a premium in upscale restaurants in New York, unless maybe one orders off menu. Maybe the new rich, or whoever, do like everything soft and smooth, but am I the only dissenter who despairs of the monotone?

The relative risk of receiving a dish in an upscale New York restaurant at a temperature recommended, or even envisaged, bythe chef, is sufficiently low that such considerations are - as m'learned friend Tommy would say - just typing.

Let me pick out the bits I agree with for once. Steve, you know more about the kind of people who make up the upscale New York dining community than I do - I'm still an outsider in many respects, and thus hesitate to make sociological generalizations. But your take on it sounds right to me. A style of cuisine which became well-established - when, in the 1980s? - which has been gaining a steadily wider audience over the last ten years. (This may change if the economy dives, of course.) Can we define that cuisine? It has its glories, of course, but isn't it focussed around tender, delicate pillows of protein - foie gras, filet de boeuf, rack of lamb, squab breasts, salmon, tuna, etc - prepared in a pan and sauced and garnished? I want to sow some thoughts rather than leap to conclusions. Is one of the reasons for this cuisine's success and entrenchment over the last twenty years the fact that it features, by and large, very "safe" food. Forget the foie gras, forget even the squab; the centerpiece of these entrees is typically a soft, easy-to-eat, mildly flavored sample of familiar protein. Is the audience for this cuisine one which - by and large - grew up in an era of fairly unadventurous and safe home cooking? Is it a generation which had relatively little exposure to strong meats, offal, game, oily fish, bony fish, unusual seafood? Is it a generation which has come to expect the excitement on the plate to arise from interesting garnishes or the addition of a little spice, rather than from the selection and preparation of the main ingredient? Is a lot of "new American" and fusion cooking geared to giving exotic accents to the same old dishes? Ah, questions, questions. We should all go and read Liebling again, especially the chapter which deals with the difficulty rich people face in acquiring an educated palate - to paraphrase: a diet of foie gras and pheasant may be a better habit than a diet of hamburger and fires, but it's a habit just the same.

Voice of reason.

Just to be clear, it is proper etiquette in Indian cafes in Kulala Lumpur to eat with your right hand and wipe your bum with your left. Bux and Cabby's descriptions of etiquette in France are well-intentioned, but are only going to become relevant if someone contends that the etiquette is the same in New York. Relevant and wrong. Doesn't anyone want to talk about the food?

Sounds like a winner. I do think Rocco needs to get some therapy about the rhubarb, though. It was all over the place last time I ate there. I gather you didn't have any problems with over-sweet savory dishes, which is the usual carp about his cuisine? I agree about the wine list (of course). Do they do that at March, or is my memory failing me again?

Responding to Nickn, laborious years of practice have brought me the status of being a reasonably competent home cook, quite good at some things and hopeless at others. However, my cooking is good enough that when a restaurant provides me with a dish I could have made better myself, it had better be a cheap restaurant. Reflecting the thread currently running on Lespinasse, I think I could do something better with a wild duck and some red cabbage than their kitchen was able to manage.

I'd also point out that - in my view at least - this service slip up was not the most interesting, important or noteworthy aspect of the evening. As I said some posts back, the meat entrees were coming up at a lower-than-desirable temperature in any case. Bux, I'm not in the least offended by your postion - I think it even has some merit. Taking the world as it is, however, rather than as we'd like it to be, I find the idea of tucking into my nosh while someone to whom I've just been introduced has briefly left the table, unthinkable.

These monochrome white and grey dishes remind me what those once-trendy octagonal black dinner plates were for. Haven't cooked in a week or so due to (ah, who cares...). Quick fix last night: chicken pieces with chopped garlic and onion, braised in water (yes, water) with a healthy dose of Kalyustan's seven-spice Middle Eastern mix, colored with a little tomato paste. After the chicken was done and removed, I reduced the liquid to a nice, glossy, red-brown sauce without needing any other thickening agents. Dat's it. Next time I would add a heat source - red pepper flakes or something involving chili. Good for a busy evening - like prep time ten minutes at most, and then leave it alone, then about three minutes to finish the sauce.

Not disputing about France, but it certainly is good manners to wait where I come from. As to etiquette in the United States, I don't hesitate to defer to Thomas above.

Le Cirque have their wine list on their web-site. A pdf format would be easier to download, but this is very user friendly just for browsing.

My goodness, I missed the comment about the cheese. The appropriate answer might have been "Well, fucking well get the cheeses out again."

Not disagreeing, Macrosan, but I suppose my question is whether the ability of some of these restaurants to deliver the spectacular, occasionally, and the high quality, regularly, has significantly declined without their reputations yet suffering. As I said, I had a pretty good meal at Le Bernardin a little while back, but I find it hard to believe that it was the kind of meal on which Ripert built the restaurant's reputation. If that is the case, then it's not me becoming jaded, it's the kitchen losing some of its steam.

I hear you. Maybe it's just that the restaurants named seem to drop fewer clangers. I would apply "muted" to Blue Hill, in fact; at Gramercy, the menu can be dull. Maybe March deserves further inspection; they overdo the novelty from time to time, but I do recall many suprising and impressive dishes there. I am open to the argument that there just aren't any fuck-me jaw-droppers (I nearly typed drawer-droppers) left in Manhattan, other than ADNY (and I reserve judgment on Daniel, as I said earlier).

Shrewd point, Nick. By the way, this (from lecirque.com) is Wilfrid's tip on how to spend your money: "WEEKLY CLASSICS Monday: Braised Short Ribs with Roasted Root Vegetables Tuesday: Osso Buco with Garlic Broccoli Rabe Wednesday: L'Epaule d'Agneau Braisée Thursday: Pot Au Feu "Traditionel" or Bollito Misto Friday: Bouillabaisse Saturday: Pied de Porc Farçi aux Truffes Noires with Crushed Herb Potatoes and Sautéed Spinach Sunday: Tripe à l'Armagnac with Pommes Vapeur"

All true, Bux. Note that Le Cirque 2000 does serve such things as daily specials - mainly for Maccioni's own satisfaction, I suspect; and I believe they are the best things to order there. Yes, there is a big market out there for tender filets, and I strongly feel it is leading to a dumbing down of upscale cuisine and a narrowing of menus. But your perspective is wider, and if I may, longer than mine. Links up with the experience I have just had at the NYPL's historic menu exhibition. I don't know whether the cooking at Delmonico in 1902 was any good - but by heck, you could get all kinds of different meat, game and offal cooked all kinds of different ways. One has to conclude that upscale diners have become steadily more conservative in their tastes, right?

Quite right, Bux. Tommy: I use the emoticons to register suitable nuances of expression. I have been pondering during my disgusting lunch, and concluded that a number of restaurants which are not ranked in the first tier have served me food over the last year, the excellence of which equals and surpasses that of some on the four star list. I have in mind Cafe Boulud, March, Gramercy Tavern, Fleur de Sel and, on the strength of one meal, Atelier. Blue Hill, Eleven Madison Park and the lamented Bid were not far behind. Of course, in none of these places is the setting that of a four star restaurant; but I'm just focussed right now on what's on the plate. If I carry on thinking like this, I'll be able to save some money.