Steve Plotnicki
-
Posts
5,258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Steve Plotnicki
-
-
Wilfrid - I've been thinking through your last post. It's so easy to call it quits at that point in the conversation because it becomes difficult to start proving things in the absolute. But I wasn't sitting well with me, and I even though about while sitting through last night Rangers game at the Garden which was both boring as well as frustrating. And when I got home I gave I it a go, only to not post what I had written because it wasn't settled enough. But as is often the case, sleep does wonders for the thought process.
Your post assumes that the discussion will fall apart because I am going to tell you to "see the obvious." But I don't think at all that is what I'm doing. I am pointing out to you that the obvious has already been seen by others. And that what has been codified wasn't inspired by a need to see it, the ability to see it was inspired by the unique qualities (or the meta-physical as you call it) of the creation.
So I ask you, using these non-objective examples, how you can deny that a perfectly tuned piano resonates longer and sounds "better" than one out of tune? And doesn't a well balanced wine have a longer finish? And doesn't salmon go well with pinot noir or riesling and less well with cabernet and chardonnay? Can Sympathy for the Devil not be in a minor key?* Even look at Adam's little Scottish poem, and how it transported us all to Scotland for a moment. Isn't it a combination of the choice of words and the cadence creating something magical?
Magical is the key word here, and I'm sure I can list hundreds of examples where humans have codified art according to the feelings evoked. And at the risk of being redundant, they are moved by the art to do so, not vice-versa. That's what makes it great art. It transcends being just a bunch of notes, or words on papers, or squigggly lines. It becomes, well, special.
Writer's note - Actually upon thinking about it, Sympathy for the Devil might be in a major key. It's that special Stone's tuning that has me confused. So let's amend that to say, music that is supposed to evoke evil.
(Edited by Steve Plotnicki at 11:30 am on Jan. 29, 2002)
-
In our house we use 5 cookbooks far more than any others. They are;
Bistro Cooking - Patricia Well's
The Art of Mediteranean Cooking -Joyce Goldstein
The Square One Cookbook - Joyce Goldstein
Thrill of the Grill - Schlesinger & Willoughby
Vegetables in the French Style - Roger Verge
We use others regularly like Paula Wolfert's SW French, and Simple Cuisine by Patricia Wells and Joel Robuchon, or Maguey Le Coze's Le Bernadin cookbook. But not anywhere as often as the first five I listed first.
-
Magnolia - I second Pont de la Tour. Even more romantic in the spring and summer when they have outdoor dining. How about Bombay Brasserie? Beautiful inside there, though I'm not sure it qualifies as romantic.
-
Andy - Gee, what did that compilation of Beatles number one hits sell? Something like 20 million? Mostly to kids who hadn't bought it already. I would think that their appeal extends beyond bands that want to sound like them. Don't you think? As for Zeppelin, afraid I was never a fan so I'm not the right person to comment. But I did see them in Central Park in 1969 just after they released their second album, which I thought was inferior to their first.
-
Tony - When I was at Heathrow for my flight home, I popped into the HMV and picked up one of those Greatest Hits of the 60's compilations. You know like 8 CD's with 144 songs for something like 9 pound sterling. It has songs on it by Herman's Hermits I never even heard of like "No Milk Today." Know that one? Those types of complilation does not exist in the U.S. due to how our mechanical royalty rights laws are written. But they makes fantastic ones in Britain. If you're nice to me, I'll lend it to you. And then I will explain why Montrachet is better than St. Veran :). Otherwise, Go Gunners!
-
Wilfrid - You should have been a sculptor instead of a philospher because you are very good at whittling a square of marble down to a cogent idea. Where I think we part is in your example about a Syrian chef not needing to improve his hummus. Why can't his hummus be improved? Isn't the reason that it hasn't been improved been because Syrian society doesn't demand a more refined version? You see all art including culinary arts need patrons. And if the Syrian population looked to create a culinary cultural equivelent of haute cuisine, they would encourage their chefs to do so.
I have to disagree with you about the metaphysical nature of great art. I find the greatest art is the most metaphysical. Almost all art stems from popular things. I mean Stravinsky is loaded with Russian folk music. But there is a considerable difference between the two. And it is more than just opinion that makes one art and one not. What is it about Stravinsky that makes one conclude that it is a more serious work than a folk song? Is it only a matter of opinion and being educated to think about it that way? I can't buy that. Could the Pink Panther theme music be the music for a totally serious detective, or does it have to describe one with at least a sense of humour? And could Lilliputians dance to low bass notes, or do they need squeeky high ones? Or maybe the best example. Is The Last Supper a great painting because art historians point out it contains a textbook example of a vanishing point, or does it just draw your eye there naturally? Of course it has to be the latter. The vanishing point was painted by Da Vinci. All humans did was come up with the explanation. They didn't create the phenomenon.
It's for this exact reason that I feel comfortable saying that haute cuisine is better than a mezze. As much as I like to eat a great mezze, it doesn't offer what a 3 star meal has to offer. Even a bad 3 star meal. The technique needed to prepare a proper 3 star meal is unique in and of itself. And it transcends everyday cuisine in a way that makes it almost incomparable. And this is where we finally come to your point of context and standards. And although I can dance a mean Hora, Jig or Tarrantalla at my respective Jewish, Irish and Italian festive occassions, they are not like dancing tha Tango, something where in order to do it properly, the application of technique is at a higher standard. And as such, the tango deserves recognition as being a higher art form than other folk dances.
-
[so, analogously, I am still unconvinced by the claim that French haute cuisine is better than Syrian, or Greek or Moroccan food against some abstract general standard - although personally I much prefer it.]
Wilfrid - I find that to be sort of a cop out, although one that I can understand. We can examine Syrian and Greek cuisine and sort out exactly why they aren't as complex as Haute Cuisine. Just as we can sort out why ballet is more complex than Syrian or Greek folk dancing. Or as Adam and I have used in the example about Scottish light, we can take it and put it under a microscope and determine exactly what makes it so special. And then we can examine the light in central England and learn why it's so dreary. So when you say that it wouldn't sound good for the Roilling Stones to use Stravinsky like harmonies in their music, of course it wouldn't sound good. Their milieu calls for simpler harmonies. And the end result is that their music is more about moving you emotionally, and less about it being cerebral. And it wouldn't be good for Syrian cooks to puree their hummus to the extent French chefs puree their food. The milieu calls for a little coarseness in the texture of the hummus.
But when evaluating art, or technique used in an applied art, one is stuck having to determine a common denominator to discuss things in context. So how does one compare a great hummus, with a great puree of fava beans made by a 3 star chef? I think it isn't all that difficult. You just remove milieu from the equation and examine technique and it's raw application. It reminds me of the segment with George Martin sitting in a studio discussing the Beatles when he plays the intro to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and where he says "I suspect Beethoven would have quite liked that melody." He has put his finger on it there because he realizes that the natural talent of the two composers is what binds them together. It's their choice of millieu that sets them apart. But despite Lennon's choice of a popular millieu, he can't escape the results of the natural perfectness of the arpeggio in "Lucy." And although The Beatles seem more like Herman's Hermits stylistically than they do Beethoven, if you take away the affectations of their milieu, it is substantively more like Beethoven. Which is why it will last. And why Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter" will not. It's really more than just a matter of preference.
-
Andy - I didn't realize you had a blue face! Most Englishmen I know have a red face, fom the pub (rim shot please.)
-
Adam - You know I do not know how to answer the question of why something asymetrical looks bad because it is poorly designed, and in other instances something asymetrical looks good because it is has been designed perfectly. I suppose there is a way to analyze even the most extreme examples. What I'm trying to say is that there is some human process involved with appreciating aesthetic things that comes naturally. Not for everyone, but for people who have an affinity towards that discipline. Certain things are just naturally good, and it's not an accident that so many people agree about it. The fact that I can tell that the light in Scotland is unique, is that something learned or something people with a good eye can discern? I mean the natural light there is special, how can one argue against it?
I don't see how the principal of comparing Montrachet against lesser terroirs is at all different. It is the best expression of chardonnay, providing one knows how to understand that. To some people that comes naturally, some people have to learn it. And some people could taste Montrachet and not get it, even after having it excplained to them. And some people will never know that the light in Scotland is special, or will ever learn how to appreciate it, even if they live there their entire lives. Now if you can tell me why that is, you are a better man than I.
-
Adam - During a different discussion on one of the wine boards we were discussing this issue. A very smart poster came on the board and asked the following question. He wanted to know if human beings like the way meat tastes or have they just been enculturated to the way it tastes? And his implication (not so subtly), was that if there wasn't societal pressure to eat meat, people wouldn't eat it because it really doesn't taste good. Now while that makes a great intelectual argument, it did little to advance the conversation we were having. That's because the conversation we were having needed context and parameters of what tastes good/not. Strip away the context by making an argument that our basis for the argument (we don't REALLY like the way something tastes, even though we are professing to), and the conversation falls apart. It's the "Did God part the Red Sea syndrome?" Well if you believe in God he did. If you don't, it happened as a natural phenomenon. The fact of the matter is that it makes no difference how it happened because the conversation is about [it] happening. Why is just a diversion.
So I can answer your question about Montrachet/St. Veran the same way. Montrachet is simply better, why because it is. Whether you know that from reading about Montrachet and then drinking it, or from drinking all the various terroirs where the chardonnay grape is planted in Burgundy and coming to your own conclusion, or from it being the only white wine you ever tasted, it makes no difference. It will be the greatest chardonnay in the world, providing you accept the commonly held standard of what's great. If you don't, and you think that hard, tannic, acidic wines without much fruit should be the standard, well then you are entitled. But it's like arguing that The Dave Clark Five or Herman's Hermits were better than the Beatles. They just aren't.
That's why I think that Simon's argument that Syrian cuisine is greater than Haute Cuisine is bogus (don't take it personally Simon.) I cannot fathom how someone can taste the two side by side and come to that conclusion? And to say that people are dunderheads, or poutishly waspish in their tastes and admirations, and that is why they think haute is better only serves as evidence that there isn't really any substance to the argument that Syrian is better. If there was, it would have been displayed through a food example (notice the example switched to Indian, a more complex cuisine than Syrian). So to refer back to Wilfrid's point of view, our resident expert on human conflict, whether Sympathy for the Devil is better then The Rite of Spring has to do with personal prefernce. But I think when anyone here uses the phrase "best" or "better", they really mean most complex. And to try and rebut that statement (as in the cashmere example) with specific examples of utilitarian usage is a non-sequiter. And no matter what your standards, it's hard to call yourself objective and say the Stones are more complex than Stravinsky. And if you happen to stake out that position, that's fine but it needs more backing to it than we are all dunderheads for signing up to the traditional way of thinking about these things. That argument completely dismisses the fact that people would come to the same exact conclusion on their own, without external influences. More on this and wine below.
Tony - But Parker isn't telling you that in the absolute, it's just his opinion. You are free to disagree with him. You just want to posture the argument that way so you have a basis to criticize him. And it would matter if people ignored it. His reviews are the engine that sells wines these days.
Merging this back into Adam's question about Montrachet vs St. Veran, my friend Sasha Katsman, an excellent taster put it better than anyone I ever met did. He said that tasting the great vintages of Cheval Blanc taught him which ฤ cabernet franc wines were the best ones. That it is through examples of greatness we calibrate our palates and truly learn wine appreciation. Although I wish I said that, I realized that he described my experience with wine exactly and that it was the great wines that served as benchmarks for me. And I can list each seminal experience. '61 Latour, '90 Chave, '85 Ponsot Griottes Chambertin, '90 Cuvee Centenaire, those wines made me think about those regions from a different perspective. And the Chateauneuf du Papes I drink that cost ภ, are in line with the ones that cost 贄. Tying this back into Parker (and sort of Adam's original question), he is extremely good at identifying unique wines that are deserving of exahalted status and creating a hierarchy of wines below it. And while there are onvious flaws in the system, especially at the lower ends of wine because there are so many to consider and they are so much alike, it has little or no affect on his popularity. That's because nobody has been able to come up with a competing point of view and competing scoring system that expresses a point of view that is sufficently differtent than his. And it's the same with Michelin. As flawed as their star system is, or as incomplete as the list of single star restaurants are, nobody can seem to come up with anything better that means enough to people for it to have the requisite commercial impact.
Adam - Actually it is Sailorettes that look best in cashmere jumpers. Just not ones on boats :) Apologies to anyone who might at all be offended.
-
Celine - I haven't been to Kuruma but Yasuda is great. I mean they can have 5 different grades of tuna and 7 grades of salmon all in the same evening. In fact they will prepare a tasting of all 12 fish so you can see the difference in taste and texture. And the sushi bar is the place to be.
-
Adam - Sorry about your virus. It doesn't bode well for having a nice Sunday roasted haunch of beef does it? But I'm happy here because Arsenal won and someone has promised me tickets for the next game on the 16th.
Not trying to beat a dead horse here but this part of the conversation reminds me of an argument we were having on one of the wine boards about the definition of the word "better." I had made mention that cashmere was considered "the best" wool. And someone came on who lives in Nova Scotia and said that it certainly isn't so where he lives because the best wool up there is what goes into sweaters that sea captains and sailors need to wear when they are out at sea. Now I tell this tale, possibly being redundant of Wilfrid's point, to show how all too often these chats become about semantical challenges to using terms like "best" and "better in the absolute. And I will be the first to admit that when discussing something subjective like food, there aren't any absolutes. But on the other hand, it isn't a stretch to say that French cuisine is widely held among food authorities to be the "best" cuisine. And it's certainly fair for someone to use such a widely help opinion as their launch point for discussing restaurants.
-
Tony - Two things. One, when you talk about the modern day relevency of the French codification system, you have changed the subject. The conversation isn't whether their system has flaws, the conversation is about having a system versus not having one. And while it's true enough that there are producers who make poor bottlings of Montrachet, most producers who make Montrachet, if they don't make sublime bottlings, certainly make bottlings that feature the unique characteristics of Montrachet's terroir. Like I said, even with it's flaws, I can pretty much tell what the best chardonnay is in France. But I have a hard time knowing who in England raises the best beef. I do not have that problem in France. How that can be viewed as anything other than a plus for the consumers puzzles me. I mean what is the argument against knowing the most detail about what you are going to eat?
Secondly, the slow demise of the AOC system, once again, has more to do with wealth distribution than it has to do with anything else. In the States as well as Britain, you will find that the quality of food demanded by the middle classses was of better quality as they earned more money. More disposable income and more leisure time is what is really behind better quality ingredients and restaurants in those countries. And it is what is behind all those fancy markets that have sprung up everywhere offering expensive foods. I think in France the better distribution of wealth has had the opposite effect and the populace there wants to express themselves through modern conveniences, i.e. shopping at supermarkets, which Brits and Yanks have been doing for decades. The end result is that these days foodies who live in Hampstead have more in common with foodies who live in the 7th arr. then the people in the 7th have with their own countrymen who live in the 13th. I guess that's what is called Globalization.
-
Tony - But the truth of the matter is that non AOC items are most often, and don't argue that I said always, most often not as good as AOC items. I mean the Grand Cru vineyards are in general markedly better than the Premier Cru. And Bresse and Landes chickens are markedly better than other kinds. And Charolais and Bazas beef, well you get the point. So I can turn your statement around and say that the reason the restaurant scene was so poor in Britain for so many years (and the U.S. too), was their [lack] of culinary dogmatism. I mean is all Angus beef the same? And is all the clotted cream the same or is there a wedge of pasture somewhere in England where the materials for the best clotted ream comes from? Is all Dover Sole the same, or is it worth the bother to distinguish that your Dover Sole comes from the Ile d'Yeaux (or whatever the name of the island is) like Le Dome in Paris does. Personally, I do not see how anyone would fall on the side of less information being better and to dismiss all of that codification as being dogmatic seems to fly in the face of the fact that the information is extremely helpful.
Spreading information about how to eat well isn't really any different than spreading information about how to accumulate wealth. The French to their credit, viewed food as something cultural, not just a matter of sustenance. So they invented a food labeling system that they could all understand and the result was their upper classes could easily partake on a daily basis, and the lesser classes could easily identify how to enhance their daily lives with "special ingredients" when the occassion called for it. But the Americans and Brits were stingy with the information, in fact, didn't do it at all. So while the French have been chowing down on the good stuff for a century and a half, we have been left to learn the ropes from TV food personalities and travel writers and guide books like Michelin, Gault Millau and Patricia Wells, and in more recent years Zagat and last but not least, Robert Parker. And as much as you might not like it, we are stuck with that legacy. And the proof of this, i.e. Michelin's importance, is that someone started a thread just to critique their opinion, a thread that is now three pages long. And the only reason it is important, is that we (Brits and Americans) didn't come up with our own codification system to spread the information among more people. I mean I would love to get off the plane at Heathrow one day and walk into W.H. Smith and pick up the latest English food guide (written by a Brit) that has London restaurants organized properly. But the last I looked, the Evening Standard book of reviews was the best I could find and in order to figure anything out I virtually needed to read every page. Actually the Time Out Guide to London is very useful because it is organzied properly both by type of food and they stick those little red stars next to the ones they like so it makes it easy to choose. It's just that their opinion is somewhat suspsct at the upper middle and top end.
-
[How else does one explain the predominance of a French publication in this nation of Francophobes/]?
LML - As Adam Gopnik said in from Paris to the Moon, which was echoed by my friend Marc Cosnard des Closets who now posts on eGullet, the French want to decide. They are quite happy letting others make the best films, as long as they give out the Palme D'Or at Cannes. And that is analogous for how they are about everything cultural. In fact these days, they are willing to forego their hold on claiming superiority of opinion on things that are more working class, in favor of still being the opinion-makers for things "haute." That is why Patricia Wells is now the top authority on bistros. But in spite of her popularity, the French have reserved the title of "arbiter of high cuisine" for themselves.
I think the main reason the French are good at being the arbiters of gastronomy is they spent the entire last century and a half codifying the food and wine they produce. And while not a foolproof system, AOC products are most often better quality products than non AOC products. Or as the waitress in the new Peter Mayle book says to Peter and his friend, after they ate some frogs legs and then a chicken in cream sauce, and
answered her question about how they were by telling her the frogs legs were good but the chicken was superior. "That makes sense, the chicken is AOC and the frogs legs, while good, do not have the AOC stamp."
So it's very easy to be comfortable with things gastronomic when the distinctions are clearly labeled by the government.
-
LML - Do you think Michelin matters to French people who are traveling in the U.K.?
-
Paula - I love Jean-Georges, especially the menu in the bar. Whether it is going downhill or it was just an off night can only be determined by repeat reviews by the people who go. But one has to wonder how much J-G can bite off before he has too much to chew, and whether they can keep the old standard while operating places in NY, Vegas, London and Paris.
-
Bux - You know I thought about your response for a few days trying to figure out how to respond. It was the "art" bit that bothered me. Because as much as this meal had all the indicia of art, I'm personally not prepared to call it art. And I'm struggling between the difference of something being art, and something intended to be cerebral. I can't say this meal moved me, but it certainly made me think about food in a different way. I just don't kknow if that's enough to qualify it as art.
-
Shaw - I'll stick with my statement. I think Collichio's statement, while well intended, doesn't add up to much more than simple food, albeit it from artisinal producers and fresh that day, being well prepared. And again, I think the problem is that is has the burden of adding up to something more when it doesn't have to. I also think that you shouldn't have to order veggies there. They should all be included with your meal. Then the menu can look like Gagniere's. Just the name of your main course.
-
Fat Guy - I disagree with almost everything you said. Nobody wanted Craft to be another Gramercy Tavern, we would have been happy of it was just another place that served good food. It wasn't the customers who came up with the marketing gimmick of it being about a chef's craft, it was the owners. The fact is, that the restaurant doesn't really have a theme to it that is recognizable through its cooking. The "theme" they created is expressed through the presentation. I mean what type of theme is "the freshest food perfectly prepared?" Isn't that what every restaurant should be?
But isn't that all Craft is?
In reality, Craft is more like Union Square Cafe than Granercy Tavern in that it really serves New York style bistro cuisine, but with a French rather than Italian slant. And if that is how they billed the place, it would be just as crowded, and there would have been less controversy. But Tom wanted the focus to be on how diners and chefs put a meal together. A great intelectual concept, but an unneccesary burden for many diners.
Craft needs to be viewed, as Robert Brown correctly viewed it, without the excesses of the presentation. And in my less than humble opinion, they would benefit from serving what they cook family style instead of in hundreds of little plates, each with serving forks and spoons. I mean if truffle filled agnoloti are good that day, for god sakes bring out a big bowl of the stuff and let everyone chow down on it. When I order a side of fimgerlings steamed and buttered, I want a bowl of them to pass, not a kidney shaped dish with 3 1/2 potatoes in it.
-
Tony - We obviously do need the 100 point scale becsue so many people flock to it and wine sales have grown at the same rate Parker's popularity has grown. And I disagree with you about there being other useful wine guides. There just aren't unless you want to read pages upon pages of text, only to still come away confused. Numerical scores, whether they be 100 point scale or 3 stars, express preference in a concise way. So what if it is inherently flawed because numbers do not adequately express nuance. Most people just aren't that picky when it comes to wine and when faced with choosing a Cote Rotie between Jasmin and Jamet, are happy seeing one get a 90 and the next get a 92. In reality, one can write a small tome about the difference between Jasmin and Jamet. But that is really of no consequence to your average diner.
-
Tony - Not to go veering off on a tangent but, Parker 's books are best sellers in France too. He's the most influential critic there. In fact he's the most influential critic anywhere. And the reason for that is exactly what my friend Robert said. He organized wine for consumers in a way nobody ever did before. When you dismiss the people who follow his recommendations, you are insulting people for no reason. Wine is a category that is almost too vast to consider. And if you are a novice at it, there is no better way to find a point of entry than Parker.
As for his palate, he happens to be spot on almost all of the time when it comes to Bordeaux, and he is quite good when it comes to the Rhone. He is "less good" when it comes to other regions, but that is almost always a function of the fact that the style of wine he likes is big, highly extracted and low in acid. In other regions like Burgundy he does less well because the best wines are made in a more subtle style and do not appeal to him. So he prefers vintages like '97, atypical because it doesn't feature terroir to a vintage like '96 which is classsic in style.
Although my own palate prefers wines that are different than many of the wines he recommends, I think all in all he does a good job of expressing his point of view. Whereas someone like Clive Coates does a poor job expressing his point of view. So at least give the guy credit for what he accomplished. And much to the discredit of the people who speak against him, history has been showing him to be right about things, far more often than he has been wrong.
Andy - That Parker has set a commercial standard that wineries try to copy is just the way business goes. There used to be a time when everyone wanted white wall tires on their car. Does anybody ever get white walls these days? The problem with wine is that it was a complicated field that was for the benefit of sophisticats and intelectuals and the general public was pretty much shut out of wine appreciation. Parker helped change that and because the number of people intereted in wine grew, the common denominator of what type of wine appeals to people has changed. So you know have a lot of commercially made, but high end wine made for people. That seems to bother lots of people but I don't know why. There is still tons of great, traditionally made wine to buy and drink.
-
Although I've never been, I hear Cafe des Federations hasn't been the same since the woman who ran it left. If I have my stories straight, she's the woman who bought Chez Phillipe, Auberge Pyranees Cevennes in Paris and was named bistro owner of the year in many of the French guidebooks. Supposedly, a friend of mine who has been in Lyon quite often in recent years and who has eaten in most of the bouchons including Federations tells me that La Meuniere, where I ate last Saturday is the best bouchon. But you should check the New York Times archives for Jackie Frederichs article on Lyonaisse bouchons that appeared last year.
-
Holly - If you are going to Megeve, that's where Marc Veyrat is for the winter (the guy with the black hat.) His restaurant is called La ferme de Mon Pere and the Gault Millau rates it a stellar 19 points and puts a heart next to the score. Closed on Monday and for Tuesday lunch.
Those stars in full
in United Kingdom & Ireland: Dining
Posted
Magnolia - I hate to say this but, people who do not know when a piano is sufficiently out of tune do not have valid opinions about music. How could they? Music is intended to be played in tune. And to throw some fuel on the fire with Tony, taking a position that St. Veran and Montrachet are equals is hardly a position at all. The entire philosophy as to how they farm and then produce wine in Burgundy is based on the "fact" that Montrachet is better. It has nothing to do with Parker or any other reviewer. It has to do with what the Burgundians themselves felt was their best wine. And it's been that way for centuries. And to go down the road that Wilfrid said I would go down, a good St. Veran might have a 15-20 second finish while a proper Montrachet can last for 90 seconds. Where is the debate there?
And to get back to the original point, these things are beyond subjectivity and prefernce. There's a mathematical equation as to how to tune a piano. And when you get the keys tightened "perfectly," the notes resonate the longest. If you have ever tuned a guitar by using harmonics, you would know that when the strings are out of tune, the notes vibrate in a funny way and the impact of the vibration shortens their finish. But when they are perfectly in tune, there is no vibration and the notes ring true and last longer. And their length then becomes solely dependant on the quality of the construction of the instrument and strings. In fact tuning guitars has become so scientific that electric ones now get tuned according to a meter that tells you when they are tune. This equation isn't something that humans made up, although it is something they figured out about a natural phenomenon. And to deny that an in tune piano isn't more pleasing to the ear is to deny, okay what Wilfrid said I would say, the obvious.
Wilfrid - There is a difference between something being different and being "off." Musical scales that contain quarter or half tones are not out of tune, they are just different. And there is a difference between listening to something you aren't used to listen to and finding it unusual, and something being a failure at its art.