Steve Plotnicki

"Plenty of tastes need to be acquired by most people (you do run into the occasional person who loves very advanced food or wine upon first tasting it, but this is not normal)." The best example is how people do not usually like mature wine when they first start drinking wine. I've seen it happen over and over again that someone who is given one of the world's great bottles of wine says ,' what's so special about this, it tastes spoiled to me?" Most American wine drinkers I know including moi, rejected European wine for Californian and Australian wines when they first started collecting. But quite often those people acquire a taste for European wines including acquiring a taste for mature wines (this would include moi.) And in many, many instances, they are no longer able to tolerate New World wines unless they have been made in a style that echoes European style.

Fat Guy - The best veggie burger is one from my youth. It was to be found at (and possibly still can be found) at Smile of the Beyond which is connected to the community based around the teachings of Sri Chimnoy (is he still alive?). There is a small enclave of shops on Parson Blvd. just off of Hillside Avenue in Queens that are operated by people who follow him. Smile of the Beyond is sort of a vegetarian coffee shop. They used to serve these terrific veggie burgers made from soy protein and chopped veggies in pita bread. It might be worth the schlep to Queens to check it out. And there are other foodie points of destination nearby including that Guatamalen Place that had it's ten minutes of fame a few years back. And there are a few Salvadoran Papuserias on Jamaica Avenue about a 1/2 mile away.

I hate to be the curmudgeon on this one but I find this topic to be similar to our discussions about objectivity/subjectivity viewed through the angle of physiology. When we speak about someone's palate, as in the type of statement that says, "Robert Parker has a good palate" we mean that he can taste things objectively. Yes it includes a certain aspect of personal preferrence but still, we accept him as some type of objective standard. And maybe I'm missing something but I can't think of it being used a different way. And when we say things like "hone one's palate," we use it to mean the same thing. To use Jeffery Steingarten's example of eating something 10 times to acquire a taste for it, i,e, honing one's palate, it still means calibrating one's palate against an objective standard. And not liking something like Fat Guy not liking Kiwis has nothing to do with his palate being good or bad. He just doesn't like it. Comparing it to like statements such as "he has a good ear" to describe someone who has an affinity for music, well not everyone with a good ear has an affinity for every type of music. I can listen to jazz and hear the nuances but I can't do that with classical music because my ear isn't trained to do it. Whether I could do it with some "honing" is another thing. As to how one acquires a "sense of taste," meaning a way to taste things objectively (as in conforming to commonly held standards of things that people usually think taste delicious,) that's a different issue. Some people are naturals and some people have to learn it. Just like people with a good ear. But like someone who has perfect pitch in music, that person starts out with a huge advantage. Now can you teach someone perfect pitch or can you teach someone who doesn't naturally have the ability to taste things to do it? That I don't know and those who are more familar with science than I am can comment. But my gut tells me that those things are like any other talent and either you got it or you don't.

Nick - Maybe when the cobwebs are gone you will mull this over. Ripe camembert is delicious to those who have an affinity for the way it tastes. But liking it usually doesn't usually come naturally to people. Learning how to enjoy it entails a slow learning process that most people will never make their through. Many foods or food combinations rely on an "educated palate" and many things aren't obvious to us. Once upon a time serving sauteed foie gras with goujonettes of soul was blasphemy. Then one day some chef figured out how to make it work and that pushed the envelope. Was it obviously delicious to people when they first taste it? To some maybe and to some it took a while. And other things while being delicious challange your assumptions about food. Having the red pepper essence lollipops at The Fat Duck is a good example. Lovely sweet lollys but after 5 seconds of sweetness you realize something is different. The end result is that the cerebral component outweighs the delicious factor. But if those lollys were served anywhere, it very well might lose it's cerebral component. But camambert will never lose that component because of its complexity.

Toby - Well you have juxtaposed semantics and physiology. Always a surefire way to get the juices flowing at eGullet. But I'm afraid I don't find the wonder in your question that the others have found. That's because when people refer to someone's palate, they are referring to that persons ability to taste things. It doesn't matter if it means the ability to taste the ingredients that are subsumed in a dish, or to simply have a good sense of taste. And an educated palate just means that someone has had sufficient tasting experiences. And can people who smoke have a good palate? Sure. The wine critic Clive Coates smokes and he has a good palate. And an educated one as well.

I think you guys are wrong about Hendrix. He played the guitar upside down, The high E was the first string on his guitar at the top of the neck. Did either of you ever see him live? I saw him at Avery Fisher in 1969 (he sucked) and he was playing a Stratocaster upside down, bending the high E downward. But I will stand corrected if you can find a film of him playing as you have described.

Slaedums - You mean playing upside down or in reverse wouldn't warrant different technique? You lost me there. Just your point about pickup positions alone and how he would have to manipulate the tone to take advantage of it necessitates unusual technique that someone like Otis Rush wouldn't have to resort to. And string bending which I pointed out earlier is another. How about strumming? I'm sure there are more points to add to it as well. Of course this isn't to say that these variable aloe make up Hendrix's greatness. But they certainly add to his unique sound.

Robert S. - Amen brother. But then again I'm like you, I prefer that we limit contentiousness to discussions about food, not to discussions about other people. And maybe Mel will join us for dinner. Also, I hope you forgive me the same way after I post my upcoming thread on pasta. May the forks be with you. .

Hollywood - But it's part of what makes Hendrix Hendrix. For example, when he bent notes he pulled down instead of pushed up like all the other guitarists did. That type of nuance made his sound totally unique. Whether he would have been a great guitar player if he played in a conventional style is really a different point. The fact is the unusual technique is an important factor in making his playing distinguishable from others. I can give you a few other examples of people who played their insruments in an unusual way where it made a big difference in their recordings. Go listen to Todd Rundgren Hello it's Me on Something Anything. Except for the trumpet and sax, he plays all the instruments himself I believe. And he plays drums in the oddest way and it makes the record sound totally unique. There isn't a trained drummer in the land who would approach it the way he did. And it's the same for Stevie Wonder who played his own drums during his good period. If you hired the best drummer in the world to play on those sessions, he would never have made the same choices that someone who isn't really a drummer would make. It even applies for Wilfrid's example of the Ramone's whose success is based on their complete lack of technique. It's the maximum application of the technique any 16 year old kid that plays guitar reasonably well could muster, yet with the reliability of adults. And in their case, that was one of their biggest selling point.

Aurora - In my experience, the biggest reason that people are turned off from posting is they don't want to particpate in a site where bickering is constantly going on. And also in my experience, the thing that creates the most bickering are incessant discussions about how people on the site speak to each other. John's article is just a variation on that theme. You will find out that all websites suffer when the conversation goes off topic and turns towards the members. "He PMd me, more than once, suggesting that I was either anti-gay, anti-Indian, anti-Muslim, or all three" Nina - LOL as hard as I can.

Hollywood - Well what you are describing is not technique but showmanship. The fact of the matter is that what makes Hendrix'x playing so unique to begin with is that he's a lefty who plays a righty guitar upside down. So his technique is about as unique and original as you will ever find.

Jordyn - I have no idea how to finish it short of the resolutions I outlined. Yesterday when I posted what peeved me about John's article, which was not about the contents of the article but about his membership here, I had thought the thread would have died with that point. But the moderators are the ones who weren't happy with that point and they perpetuated the thread. And like many things around here, it took on a life of its own. Now we are waiting for it to die a natural death, unless someone comes along and does something to significantly change the landscape. Bux - As far as I know, Suvir insulted three people. Jaybee, Robert S. and myself. Those are the only three people I have ever asked him to apologize to. For you to say it would be a never ending procession of people wanting apologies is just avoiding the issue. If he doesn't want to that is fine. But you should know that there not being a resolution to that incident curtails my involvement on the site. For example, yesterday when Suvir posted about Kalustyan's, I had loads to say about it. Including the fact that I had considered approaching the owners about buying the place and trying to turn the Kalustyan's brand into the top spice mail order company in the country (unfortunately Sept 11 made me rethink going into the middle eastern food business . ) But I held myself back from participating because of the nature of what was said to me that day and what Suvir said about me to people in private. So I don't know what to tell you. It is not a witchhunt at all and it has nothing to do with beating anyone's wife. The people who were offended, whomever they are, had every right to be and have every right to ask for an apology. But as I promised one of the moderators around here, I am quite happy to drop discussing it and move on. And as I stated earlier, I didn't bring it up. Whiting did. And if you agree to drop it right now so will I. But for the record, my position on it stands.

"If I'm the best-dressed person in a restaurant, I wouldn't patronize the place" Would you belong to a club that would have you as a member?

JD - Quickly just as to this point, my comment about the average price per diner and working backwards comes right out of my conversations with chefs in NYC. They are all acutely aware of what every restaurant in the city gets per cover. They all know that Daniel is something like $135 a diner and many of them gauge their own restaurants in relation to that number. But let me digest the rest of your response and post more on it later.

Wilfrid & Jordyn - Hey I didn't bring Suvir up. John did. I've been on a don't even mention Suvir diet for weeks now. It is other people who bring him up. Part of the reason everyone is so pissed off here is that John was trying to rehabilitate Suvir's reputation in his article. And one of the tactics he was using was to denigrate the members who have an issue with Suvir. Fortunately we have smart posters around here and one of them just PM'd me the following, "Just read Whiting's piece again. One point that I don't think has been raised: his dig at members with supposedely unlimited money does not hold with his praise of Suvir for serving up feasts for the...what was it...conjures up banquets for the greats and near-greats. Seems as if he is trying to have it both ways with those comments. And one more thing: if there truly was no agenda regarding Suvir, then why only mention him? Why no mentions of other moderators?" If Suvir doesn't want to respond to the questions put forth here, or if management has told him not to respond, I'm not going to complain about it. But like Israel and Egypt, it's a cold peace and everyone does their best given the circumstances.

Sorry Wilfrid I didn't see your post. I don't think anyone is asking for Suvir to resign. I'm certainly not. I think people just want an explanation as to what happened. The truth would be a good starting point. As for me personally, I would be happy with an apology to those who were personally offended (which happens to include me.) I said it the day it happened and I am still saying it. I just apologized to John and others because he and others took my reference the wrong way. Why can't those who crossed the line that day act the same way? Jaybee - Alevai. And I'm sure Nina will correct me if I spelled it wrong.

Apologies to anyone who thinks my use of Munchausen Syndrome was to imply that John actually abuses children. I wasn't trying to imply anything of the sort. I only used it as an analogy to show an instance where people create a scenario to draw attention to themselves. The specifics of the syndrome was not what I was pointing to. But what I was pointing to was how John's personal involvement in the anti-Semitism thread, which included egging on Suvir as well as the trolls ended up as an article criticizing the site. And if I had the time to comb through older threads or even back pages of current ones, I think I would find that simultaneous with John unleashing some personal comment or politicizing a thread, the trolls often appeared. And then instead of his warding off the trolls as many of the rest of us would do, he would bask in their glow. Now Bux might disagree with that assessment, but it's the way I see it. So I've used it in that context but I thought that was clear. And again apologies to anyone who didn't understand that it was a metaphor for other behavior that had nothing to do with child abuse. And my apologies to John if he took it that way. But I see no need to edit it out of that post with this explanation in place. But I would gladly do so if John still feels offended by it after this explanation. As for winning or losing, gee I didn't realize this was that kind of pissing match. It's unfortunate that this had to be do or die and there couldn't be a resolution that allowed things to normalize. But if you think about it, the chutzpah of portraying people who are complaining about being personally insulted as trying to limit free speech, or as descirbing them as big brother sort of sums things up well. Those two positions simply can't co-exist. Because the latter position shows absolutely zero respect for the former.

Wilfrd - Well it would help if John responded to the various questions on the merits. His lack of doing so is what makes issues regarding his membership keep popping up. When you asked me about my quick trigger finger in accusing someone of being a troll, I responded in the next post. John not only has avoided a response but has tried to steer attention away from this thread by posting an ad hominen attack against me in a new thread. It's the same with Suvir unfortunately. His unwillingness (or maybe it is how he was instructed to act) to apologize directly to the members he offended, nor to clear the air over his head about his involvement with any of the troll posters has kept his matter alive. What I don't understand (and I think this is at the heart of Cabby's question) is why they are allowed to get away with it? Nina - And thank you for drawing that distinction.

But how is what I just said different than what I said originally? Technique is the primary issue to asssess and then execution. The rest can be bought for money. It sounds the same to me.

Wilfrid - But it is said with the deepest of affection . Nina - Actually that isn't the case. I don't hate John. I just have a bone to pick with him about how he feels free to comment on the other members of the board. If you were to go back and read through my points, you will see it is limited to that topic and points that are tangential to it.

Fat Guy - If you don't think there is a general correlation between the ranking of restaurants, from any source, and the technical proficiency of the chefs and how they execute, I don't know what to tell you. If it wasn't the case, all restaurants would be as good as Jean-Georges which they're not. So I must be on to something. And to tell me that Jean-Georges is simply more delicious than others doesn't delve into why it's a more interesting restaurant to eat at. Because I can get delicious sauteed foie gras anywhere. But what makes JG unique is the unusual technique he applies to the foie and how well he executes it. If that wasn't the case, I could make the foie at home, which I can't do because I'm not technically proficient and I can't execute as well as he can.

Wilfrid - Well the troll issue is a tough one. It's kind of hard to tell who is and who isn't. But I'm much happier blaming it on management because they continue to allow the trolls to remain on the board . But in specific, I have to disagree with you about Cakewalk as I have some pretty good analysis in my inbox about Cakewalk being a troll. Someone said it best yesterday in a PM. Any new member who starts out with a negative post is suspect. And that's because it echoes the tactics of the trolls. As to political comments, I'm not complaining about someone taking a political position, I'm talking about denigrating members because of their political beliefs. You might be a conservative, and I might think that things conservatives believe in are moronic. But you will never hear me call you a moron as a way of denigrating your person. I know that line is somewhat inexact. But the real issue here is motivation. If we cut to the chase here and evaluate this in the specific, one of the great things on this site is that it actually has people with significant experience at haute cuisine establishments. And it happens to be the case that one can't have that experience without being able to afford it. So how is anyone supposed to take a statement from another member denigrating their experience? And further to that point, why would a member want to make that statement? Isn't it just an indirect way of shining a bad light on that category? And ultimately doesn't it attempt to discourage writing about that category? That is the thrust of my point. None of it is commentary about food, it is commentary about who eats it. Somewhere between the two the line is crossed as to what is appropriate and what isn't. And as usual it is on a case by case basis. Management thinks John crossed the line with his "Dr. Plotters" post. I'm just suggesting that the line was crossed at an earlier point in time.

Wilfrid - Thank you for a fair analysis of my point of view. If I had to add anything to it, it wouldn't be that I have to take that position. That is my position. As I tried to point out to Macrosan, it is more in line with how a professional views the world than the audience. I'm always reminded of the great TV program hosted by Scorcese where he extols the virtues of a famous B movie director (although that is a contradiction in terms isn't it? ) demonstrating how this director applied such amazing technique when making his films. The films were shit, but not to professionals when applying a certain set of objective criteria to them. And to the layman, there was more to learn about film by watching that show than one could learn on their own by watching 100 good films. You know I think Emeril, in spite of his popularity and the watering down of his cooking, happens to be a pretty good chef. But there's a reason why when he has Daniel Boulud on as a guest he calls him "Chef" with the respect that a stagiere has for his boss. The difference in technical proficiency and ability to execute between the two of them is signifigant. And it is embodied in how he addresses him. And your point (which I believe subsumes Fat Guys point about simplicity) doesn't mean that Emeril can't make a dish that is more delicious than what Boulud will make on a visceral level. But that has nothing to do with an objective measure of technique and execution. And it certainly doesn't discount that simple technique that demands very exacting execution can't be sublime. Fat Guy - If you noticed I said "primary." I didn't discount any of the other reasons. I just said they can be bought for money. And I also said that execution was another necessary item that couldn't be bought for money. That "turn of the wrist" phrase which you rejected. Macrosan - Well I personally think that's what many people get out of eGullet. They get to eat with the professionals and semi-professionals so to speak and hopefully everyone (including me) will come away with a greater and different way to appreciate food and wine. To me the greatest thing about eGullet is it brings us mere mortals into a sphere of professionalism as regards to cuisine. We actually have access here to many chefs, writers and good thinkers about food. And it's from the historical (even though hysterical might be more apt these days) to cutting edge. From the most expensive and elaborate presentations to how to make a good chicken soup. When I go to a place like Blue Hill and Dan and Mike come out to speak to the table after dinner, my ability to ask them how they got the cod to come out a certain way allows me to use it as an objective standard when I eat Cod someplace else. Because if it isn't prepared as well I have a basis to ask why that's the case.

Well I continue to stand by my original point that the genesis of our problems lay with people feeling that they have the right to make comments about others who post on the site. And John's posting about me earlier today perfectly illustrates this point. It's nothing more than a character assassination, puts words in my mouth and is posted for no other reason than to tar my reputation. It is exactly the same thing that Suvir did on that fateful day. And as I've said earlier, it is what originally caused the trolls to appear and it continues to encourage them to this day. In this thread I've tried to raise two points about John. Not John as a person, but John as a member. I might stray across that line from time to time, but I try to be careful not to. In this thread I tried to raise two points in response to John's articles. 1. His lack of dicslosure about when he is wearing his member's hat and when he is wearing his writers hat seems somewhat facile. 2. He continually offers personal comments about various members here that include value judgements about how they live their lives. Further to this point, he has used the facility of his member/writer status to go "off the board" and discuss those same people elsewhere without full disclosure. I further expanded these points by pointing out that the above behavior seems to make the trolls very happy. And that John, upon the trolls appearing seemed to be quite content with their presence. I would think that is fair commentary because it is limited to a critique of what he has written. Nowhere does it criticize John as a person. I am sure he is a fine person. But Rather than respond to my criticism on the merits, we got a ranting post naming me in specific that accused me of saying things I hadn't said and made comments about the status of my mental health. In fact the post was so bad that management actually shut it down. Now I might be crazy or maybe I've been on the Internet too long but, to me, there isn't any difference between John's ranting post and his penchant for saying things like "those big spenders in America" when he particpates on a daily basis. Those two statements are cut from the same cloth. And if management around here is really interested in knowing why various posters do not seem motivated to write about the meals they have taken, I offer the text from a recent email I recieved. Once again, apologies to the writer but I will not disclose their name "I am considering a two week hiatus on posting to add my silence as a message against the piling on you. Whiting's snide article about eGullet's rich Americans is pretty shabby, and his defense of St. Suvir stinks, in my opinion. Let's see how lively and entertaining this place is without us obnoxious American elites who post all that extraneous prattle that has nothing to do with food." Now to be honest about it the writer decided against it. But it serves to show how disruptive it is when a member decides it's okay to critique other members. Not about their opinion about food which would be okay, but about their person. Not to be repetitive about this point but, John instigated and encouraged this behavior from Suvir on the anti-Semitism thread and then went out and wrote an article about the downfall of eGullet. And he did it without full disclosure. Then when I asked him the hard question about it, he went out to smear me which would clearly bring all the trolls out. I know I made a joke about Munchhausen Syndrome but...... I know the moderators here are besieged when these things happen. And I don't need Fat Guy sending me emails telling me I'm making it more difficult to moderate. But I wish there was a clear rule about making personal comments on the board. They really don't fit in and they have nothing to do with food. They only serve to disrupt the conversation. And it would eliminate the trolls all in one fell swoop. The other boards I post to just won't allow it and they remove any personal comments from the board usually before anyone complains. Personally I am confused about why they are allowed to remain on this board and I know many others share that opinion.

Fat Guy - You raised the perfect examples. None of the places you raised would I give four stars to except maybe UP and that would be more based on a personal bias. But being objective about it, Union Pacific isn't really a four star experience. It's a two star room, good service but not the type of fawning service you get at a top tier place. And the food doesn't reach the four star level in terms of scope. I eat there quite often and I love the place but it's not Lespinasse. As for Papillon, it's only technique and it isn't really executed that well. But in the scope department Papillon looms large. But I'm not sure Liebrandt can pull it off at the four star level. Atlas was more about scope and technique than it was about execution. Cello to me is a pretender. It has the trappings of a four star restaurant but not the stuffing if you ask me. But that is based on one and a half meals there but I have to say that it didn't make a big impression on me. And my sole experience with Aquavit was a lunch in the cafe a few months ago. But I disagree with the level of technique applied at USC. It's nowhere at the level of the places mentioned above. In fact I have those cookbooks and there really isn't much to the food. None of the places above have cookbooks but if they did, I would imagine the cuisine to be much more involved than creamy polenta or garlic chips. By the way, in your prior post when you raise the issue of chefs trying to make the food taste better, I think that is subsumed in my definition of execution. Story on this point. Once after having an extremely delicious dish in a curry sauce at UP, I asked them if they would give me the recipe. The waiter came back and said that Rocco was still tinkering with the recipe and he would be glad to give it to me the following week after he got it down perfectly. It is those types of things that set the place apart from other three star restaurants and is why you posed UP as a response to my question. Other three star restaurants are buying curry powder. I think my feelings about creativity are quite different than yours. There are countless chefs in this city who are creative. But there are very few who are good at it. And I believe it is technique and execution that separates the good ones from the mediocre ones. As I'm reminded whenever I read a menu that looks interesting but find out that the food doesn't taste so good. It's very easy to talk a good slow cooked salmon in curry sauce. But it's quite difficult to do it. Macrosan - You are describing the way a laymen listens to music and I am describing a professional. But what you are projecting onto my statement is that the presence of technique in itself makes something better and I'm not saying that. But I can tell you that there isn't a saxophone player in the world (exageration but not by much) who doesn't consider Coltrane's Giant Steps to be the test of one's mettle. Descending thirds (or whatever it is) that change chords on every beat played at breakneck speed is the most extreme test for anyone. But what made Coltrane great wasn't that he was able to do it, but that he was able to do it with an amazing amount of soul and feeling while codifying a specific aspect of his genre. And that's what makes Jean-Georges great as well. He invented a style of cooking that is unique to him, and then he codified the technique needed to practice the cuisine. And then he was able to bring a level of refinement (execution) to the cuisine that made it worthy of four stars.