Steve Plotnicki

Macrosan - Fat Guy and I have a silent way of communicating these things to each other. . . Adam - But that goes to my point that young Italian chefs didn't go to France to train. So isn't the answer to the original question is that Italy isolated itself from contemporary culinary thinking? There is a different way to spin that as well. One could say that Italian cuisine, while simple, is a complete cuisine. And that the attitude could easily be, if it isn't broken don't fix it.

Francesco - Thanks for some fantastic posts. Your knowledge of the history and tradition of fine dining in Italy is most welcome and a huge addition to this site. But if I can cull a single thing from your last post, unlike aspiring chefs from the U.S., Britain, Germany etc., what you have basically said is that Italians weren't interested in attending cooking schools in France. Why is that? Where is their sense of curiosity? Or where is their desire to leave the old traditions behind, which is certainly one of the things that is driving young people from the countries I mentioned to go to France to study cooking. I should add to this that in my experience, Italy, while having ethnic restaurants, seems to have fewer of them in the major cities then other countries have. It's not a matter of preconceptions. Go to either Books for Cooks or Kitchen Arts and Letters and ask them what types of books garner the most interest. You will see that with professionals and people who are interested in the latest trends of food, Italy doesn't hold that much interest for them. It is books from France, Spain and Australia that hold the most interest with British and American books right behind them. Now books for consumers are very different. No doubt the latest Lorenzo di Medici or Marcella Hazan can sell loads of copies. But chefs aren't rushing out to buy those books in order to learn something about technique or how to use ingredients. But they are with most of the books coming out of France and Spain.

Well here are the notes of my last (and first) meal at Gagnaire; I am very big on the menu reading well. I have found that the correlation between the menu looking good and tasting good runs at a very high percentage. Like I would say 80%. So when we were all having trouble with the menu I had this funny feeling we might be in trouble. So I guess that point goes to how the dishes were concieved. Because I don't think the execution was bad. The dishes were all prepared very well. It was how they were organized (and that includes the recipes) that left us a little cold. It's funny because at breakfast this morning I told my wife I just posted the Gagnaire notes and we talked about her duck. She called it "wet meat." I don't think a worse thing could be said. As for the lack of clarity or theme, if you read my notes of my first meal, I speak of how my service of pork was like a small dissertation of the many different (and appealing) ways to present a pig. This meal didn't seem to have the same sense of purpose. I guess it's the difference between serving a lobster in various guises in order to express it's different aspects and serving it three ways because you are trying to craft an interesting dish. I think your description of how one must enter Gagnaire is accurate. You have to abandon some preconceived notions of how a meal is constructed. But that doesn't mean that the restaurant doesn't have the burden of cooking you a meal that is great within the context of the other meals you have eaten. I also think it might be time for Gagnaire, in the evolution of his cuisine, to have formulated an actual cuisine that is slightly more recognizeable to his customers. Not that he should dispense with his artistic flair, but one would think that after 20 years of doing it that way he would be at the point of his career where he is perfecting what he invented, not disacrding it for even newer inventions. Certainly his cuisine could tolerate both of those concepts going on simultaneously.

Well of course it was born of poverty, but it wasn't born of fierce pride. It was a necessity. The church wanted to make sure that people put their extra money in their pishka. Not on their dinner plates. That's why Catherine diMedici and the Tuscans were important figures. They weren't dominated by the church and they built a cuisine for the bourgoise. Escaping the shadow of the church or the monarchy is at the heart of the issue of conspicuous consumption. And I can spin it the exact opposite way that you did. That the Italians inability to advance the ball on their cuisine is a metaphor for their inability to distance themselves from the power of the Church. It's the same for orthodox Jews who keep kosher. Their inability to distance themselves from their religion has kept their cuisine at a very low standard when viewing it through a gastronomic lens. Of course this has nothing to do with how the food tastes. Italians while having a simple cuisine, have a delicious one. But I'm not sure how that is a defense to the question of culinary relevency when the definition of relevency seems to be, does it mean very much on the worldwide dining scene? To say that it is so delicious that they don't need to update it is nonsensical. There are dozens of chefs in Italy who have been trying to update the cuisine for the past three decades. They have pretty much all failed at it. That is why they aren't relevent. It has nothing to do with good terroir and the delicious food that comes from it..

Actually the Bordeaux classifications of 1855 were based on price and nothing else. The first growths were the wines that sold for the most money. It was assumed that quality and availability were adequately reflected in the price. The Burgundy classifications are different. They are based on the unique characteristics of the vineyards and sites within them. That the Grand Crus sold for more money then the Premier Crus was the logical result of people correctly identifying the best sites when tasting the wines. They didn't annoint the sites based on the prices that people pay. In fact there are Premier Cru sites like Cros Parentoux that sell for more money then Grand Cru sites like Clos Vougeot. So in order to create a classification of Ca. cabs one has to choose a method by which to classify them. And since the cab market more closely resembles the Bordeaux market then Burgundy, it's probably easier to copy that system. But that system won't work for high quality, low production wines like Screaming Eagle or Harlan Estate. So I think that means you need to start a "Super First" category so they have a place to go. But I think the way you get there is to exclude anything where they make less then a certain number of cases. In Bordeaux, they make somewhere between 8,000 and 20,000 cases of the top wines. What do you think the cutoff in Napa should be? I think once you implement a logical and reasonable cutoff, you would find your first growths to be the following. Based on price paid of course; Mondavi Reserve Ridge Monte Bello Phelp's Insignia Opus One Beringer Reserve (various bottlings) Dominus Then there are a host of wine that could be on that list but underperform like Heitz Martha's, Stag's Leap Cask 23, Diamond Creek etc. Of course the "Super-First" category is easy. Hollywood - Well I used to collect and drink lots of new world wines so I have lots of experience with them. But I sold them off except for 1990 Dominus and my Harlans.

And in the eGullet spirit of circular arguments, isn't that because the Italians dropped the ball? You actually have made a great point about the unification of Italy. It was in what year, 1874? That means a unified, singly codified Italian cuisine is only 130 years old. That gives the French quite a head start. But the point about the Church should not be discarded as their desire to be the real center of power in Italy has prevented a singular and civil seat of power from emerging.

After dining at Arpege on Tuesday night, the model of simplicity it is on all counts, I was interested in seeing how the Pierre Gagnaire approach of bombarding you with tastes, flavors and textures was going to compare. I had eaten Gagnaire’s food just once before in January of 2000 and I was quite impressed. It isn’t unusual to hear people say it’s the best restaurant in Paris, and possibly France. And while I’m not sure if I would have raised it to that level based on my prior meal, it certainly was the most interesting restaurant I had ever been to. Now more then two years later it was time for a refresher course on M. Gagnaire’s cuisine. So with the help of a friend, we were able to secure a reservation. Pierre Gagnaire is in the Balzac Hotel. It’s a small businessman’s hotel on the rue Balzac just a block from the Champs Elysees. The restaurant is at the top of a steep flight of stairs, just to the right of entrance of the hotel. You enter through a dark, narrow reception area and all of a sudden you find yourself in the main dining room. The room is modern looking with a lovely printed rug and wood paneling throughout. The restaurant is on two different levels. The main dining area makes up the front ¾ of the room, and then there is a step up to a second level with a handful of tables and a glassed in wine cellar tucked away into the corner. They sat us at what I call would call one of the better tables and they handed me a wine list. My what a big improvement since my last meal. Back then it was sort of a skimpy little list. But here was a nice, thick, fat tome with a multitude of choices. After a bit of browsing, I settled on a 2000 Paul Cotat Sancerre and a 1997 Domaine Gramenon Cote de Rhone Cuvee Meme. Each wine was less then 100 euros. Not an easy accomplishment for quality wines at a three star restaurant. They brought us some menus and that’s when a few difficulties set in. First of all, we were eating with my wife’s cousin and fiancé again and they are not exactly daring eaters. So let’s say the menu was a bit challenging for them. But even if they weren’t there, I’d be lying if I said that I found it either easy to deal with or particularly delicious sounding. In particular after the prior evenings delicious cold Foie gras at Taillevent, we were hoping to find some Foie gras chaud on the Gagnaire menu. As the captain was struggling to take our order (and I have to say it was difficult because none of the food sounded particularly good,) we mentioned Foie gras and he asked us if we would like some warm sautéed Foie gras. So after a little powwow, two of us ordered a mixed Foie gras platter with a few tranches of hot sautéed Foie and a nice scoop of a cold terrine. Off menu at Pierre Gagnaire! I’d like to tell you that the rest of the story turned out well. But it didn’t. Oh our Foie gras was fine enough, but the rest of our meal was no better then living up to 50% of expectations. Our starters were much better then the main courses. I ordered the lobster, which was served in three courses. My wife and the fiancé ordered the duck, and the cousin ordered the St. Pierre. I wish I could give you the rest of the meal with my typical flair but it was so uninspiring an effort that the words aren’t gushing out of me. That is one of the reasons it has taken me so long to post this. There isn’t much to say about the meal other then it was a model of mediocrity. It was served in the typical Gagnaire style of a series of “plates” with variations of each main ingredient. But different from my first meal there, there was no harmony or rhythm to the meal. None of it seemed to make any sense. I would say that of the five or six small plates they give you with each course, they were running 25% delicious, 25% very good, and the other 50% left you scratching your head. But the worst part of the meal was the duck my wife and the fiancé ordered. The captain talked them into it by describing the duck as slow roasted and “crispy.” What came to the table was a duck breast that was cut into large cubes and tossed in what looked like a brown sauce. No skin or crispiness in sight. I didn’t taste it, but the report was that it tasted like very plain roast duck. I didn’t love the Sancerre. Cotat’s wines are often denied appellation status because the residual sugar is too high. But this bottle was labeled Sancerre. I found it a bit flabby, too much cat pee tones for my liking. But the Gramenon was a great bottle. Beautiful tones of violet and notes of sage. A little thinner then I like my Cote de Rhone, and maybe it will put on a little weight, but just beautiful to drink. So I wonder if my experience at Gagnaire has to do with an off night. Or maybe I was just tired this being the third night in a row of three star dining. Or maybe I find Gagnaire’s style of serving lots of plates to be old fashioned, or not a concise enough approach, What I can honestly say about the meal is that it lacked clarity. Not much of a theme. And none of the exciting cooking I found on my first visit. And though I am sure I will go back and give it another chance, I’m not in a hurray to return anytime soon..

Minestre, Riso i polenta, sensa gluten di farina bianco. But you raised another good point. Not only are they provincial as a nation, they are provincial by region. Do they have cars there? And as long as you brought up religion, has the church had anything to do with it? I know that one of the reasons that Italians flourished in various fields of design like furniture, clothing, etc., was that there wasn't the GNP to build great buildings and public structures. So many people who would have gone into architecture ended up working in a smaller motif. You're a smart guy Balic. Why don't you go out to the library now and read a couple of thousand books on the topic and report back to us about whether Italy's inferior economic position hampered the growth of their cuisine.

It's not a matter of disallowing pasta, it's a matter of it being injected into every meal as it's own course. And what do you mean that the Japanese use starch. Are you speaking of the rice in sushi? Real connoisseurs of Japanese food only eat sashimi. The rice is for tourists.

Well after Peter's last post let me ask the question this way. Why hasn't the Italian public developed their palates in the same way that the French, British, Spanish, Germans and others have? Is it because their cuisine is so delicious? Or is it because there is some other lack of social or economic progress? The food in Italy is very good. But not good enough to warrant the type of isolationism you have described.

But they don't cite it based on their modern cooking techniques or philosophies. They cite it based on simple and traditional cuisine using local ingredients. Personally I believe that the pasta course kills any possibility of Italy ever creating a modern cuisine. To think that there *has to* be a course in the middle of the meal that is entirely devoted to starch makes no sense in the world of modern gastronomy. I mean the trend is away from starches in the first place as people want to eat lighter. Did you ever see Dr. Atkins recommend pasta? If you impose either pasta, rice or polenta on every meal, let alone as it's own course, when would you serve things like an egg with maple syrup or "perfect" food? Oh that's right, the guy who serves the perfect food also serves pasta. Gee Sandra was right about those circular arguments . Gavin - The easiest definition of modern gastronomy in this context is the restaurants and cuisine(s) that foodies and chefs talk about. You don't hear much chatter on this website about Al Sorriso, Don Alfonso, Enotecha Pincchiori, San Vicenzo or other restaurants in Italy that have 2 or 3 Michelin stars. You hear some, but they aren't really destination restaurants other than for Italophiles who are travelling in Italy anyway. Not much talk about "I'm dying to go to San Vicenzo." You also don't have the same demand from chefs for cookbooks and recipes from Italian chefs as you have with French and Spanish chefs.

As well as a haven for people who point them out .

Let's get the proffers right so there is no misunderstanding; 1. Alain Ducasse's restaurants do not deliver on his promise that you are going to eat food prepared by "the world's best chef." Nor do they live up to the promise that what they will serve you is in search of "perfection." That implies that you are going to get at least a near perfect meal. 2. Until he does live up to that promise, I don't see where he has the moral authority to be the one to codify nouvelle cuisine for our generation of diners and the generation that preceeded us. If his authority comes from his understanding of cooking, and his keen eye in order to amass important recipes and to organize them, then he has some entitlement. But if his authority stems from recipes he has created when the totality of the recipes acts as a roadmap for nouvelle cuisine, then I think he is a phony because I don't see where any of his dishes have contributed to the lexicon. 3. The only reason he is so intent on proffering reason number 1 and number 2 is to soften the blow when the hard questions are asked. It is a diversion so it can be pointed to in order to deflect the tough question of where are the masterpieces? It implies the answer of, who needs masterpieces, look at this body of work. Which is exactly the way Fat Guy used it. So I guess if Ducasse didn't make the claims he made about himself, didn't act like he is the foremost authority on codifying cuisine, and actually cooked a meal once in a while where a majority of the people in my minion thrust their thumbs up instead of down, I would react differently to him. But part of his not doing those things makes him the poster child for internationalized cuisine, that doesn't feature locally grown ingredients, and tastes like it could come from and be cooked at anywhere in the world. And that's a hell of a lot to criticize him about. He didn't make cuisine better. He made it worse. Just like any other chain of restaurants.

Cabby - I am going to have to agree with Wilfy on this one. While I enjoy the cooking at Blue Hill very much, the scope of what they attempt do there doesn't compare to the scope of ADNY. And there is no comparison as the level of technique applied. What they do there approximates what goes on in a Michelin one star. What goes on at ADNY can only be described as being at the 3 star level, regardless of whether one likes the place or not.

Harlan Shafer Hillside Select Dominus Pahlmeyer Pride Mondavi I know a few of those are not just cabernet but are meritage but they are mostly cabernet.

Bux - That post was awful. To say I don't have the right to criticize creative people just because what they do it creative is the biggest "let's protect the people in the business" argument anyone here has put forth. I have every right to complain and to criticize. It's my 600 euros and you should be damn sure that if Ducasse wastes my money I will be the first person to say so on national TV. Wilfrid - What makes Ducasse a target is that in many ways he holds himself out to be the world's best and most knowledgable chef. And when people go to his restaurants and find the food, and in your own words, only very good, they hold it against him that he didn't deliver on his promise. Let's look at the book he wrote on American ingredients. Where did he have the moral authority to write that book? He didn't. I don't think anybody believed that he was really a student of American gastronomy or ingredients. It looked like a business ploy. He was opening a restaurant in NYC and he needed to have "expert" credentials.

It wasn't my point. It was yours. I just called Ducasse so I can prove that it isn't a difficult reservation to get at all. How can that be possible when we are talking about "the world's greatest chef," who runs "establishments that strive for perfection," and who will go down in history as being "the most important chef of the 20th century." Anyway I'm happy leaving this point behind. I'm much happier sticking to my masterpiece point.

Well that's because when people eat the food it delivers what he promised them. You have to remember that I started out as a disbeliever. Someone who didn't eat there from it's inception until last February because I didn't believe what I thought was hype. In fact I don't think I would have been inspired to go at all had he not offered the proffer that he was abandoning meat and going all(really mostly) vegetables. The notion that a three star chef could pull off a meal that was limited to veggies had an allure for me. But he actually delivered what he said he was going to deliver and that it is why his supporters are so virulent. How rarely that occurs in any field let alone fine dining. And the core of critcism against Ducasse stems from this very issue. He did not deliver what he promised. This is why Passard has had more success with the press then Ducasse has had. Passard had a small goal. I can dispense with meat and keep your interest. Ducasse's proffer, I am going to open up the best restaurant in NYC, is a proffer that is doomed for failure unless you deliver on 1000% of your promise. Any significant variation from that standard and you are going to get killed by both the press and the public. As for the arepa lady, yes she cooks with soul. So do many people. Then there are many who cook without soul. Just like there are people who paint with soul, sing with soul and act with soul. Then there are a bunch of stiffs who don't. Fortunately I am happy I have the ability to recognize it. That there are a bunch of people who have the same ability, and that I am friendly with them doesn't prove anything. Like I said earlier, just talk to people who dine at both places. Yes Arpege has its legions of fans, and it has people who knock it too. Just like Fat Guy. But show me the overwhelming public support through offered opinion for Ducasse? So far what has been offered is it is harder to get a reservation. So I picked up the phone so I could see if it is difficult to get a reservation at Ducasse. This is what I found. At ADPA, they were fully booked for dinner for the month of October but I could get a table for Nov 5. Less then 30 days out. Then at Monte Carlo I aksed for a table the weekend of Oct 325/26 andf they offered me one for the 25th. The 26th was fully booked. And then I called ADNY and I was able to get a table for dinner this Thursday evening at 8:00. Does anyone call that in demand? You want to see a restaurant in demand, try to get into the French Laundry. Or try to get into El Bulli.

Macrosan - Well all you are saying is that you don't bring the same level of discernment to the dining experience that others do. Didn't you know that is a reuqirement to participate on this board. The shame of it. Adam - Well I would never call anyone an idiot who says the food in England is crap . I just think the response Matthew got is based more on Rome's reputation then actual experience. And maybe Matthew ate in the wrong places. But it's also very easy to have poor meals there. But it also gets back to the question of what good really is, and what standards need to be kept, and whether everyone here keeps the same, or requisite (as shown by Macro above) standards.

Fat Guy - Overlown, overblown, overblown. Let's look at what I really said. First I agree with this statement of yours; Well I don't see what is so controversial about doing that. I am defining a school of thought that a certain group of people apply. I am sure at the time of their bursting on the scene, their were schools of thought that were in favor of abstract artists and schools that were against them. In fact there are still schools that are against them. Even more so for conceptual art. I've just thrown my lot in with a certain school of thought, which is totally comprised of people's visceral and cerebral reaction when dining. And that I happen to think we are of the right opinion, isn't a function of popularity or preferrence. It's my analysis that we have prioritized the dining experience in the way that history will llikely record it. And that in this example, history will sort out the difference between Ducasse's contributions and his self-promotion. And of course I/we could be wrong. But when I walk around Moma or an equivelent, among other things, and I shudder to use this as an example because what I know about fine art can go on the head of a pin, I see boldness, daring, flair and passion. Yes pure technique has its place on its walls. But mostly I see artists who make statements about themselves, and even more importantly, tell us something about ourselves. It's the difference between viewing a painting that has three women bending over and The Gleaners. I am sure The Gleaners were not the first painting that had women bending down. But it was the one that captured the essence of why they were doing it, and had the right application of technique at the same time. And most importantly, it said something about the way the world was organized that needed correction. Those are the types of things that last forever. From artists who notice something and who take a chance that they can express it properly. And of course I/we can be wrong taking an even wider perspective into account. Maybe the school I belong to sees things in the short term. And Ducasse's creations are long term and permanent additions to the art of cooking. But as I have said, I haven't seen you or anyone else make that case through example, other then he has written a body of work that has him positioned for that crown. And my school of thought says that his body of work will never be a replacement for his lack of masterpieces. And unless he has his Mona Lisa, his Guernica, his Day in the Life or his Death of a Salesman etc., he will never be remembered in the way you are describing.

Okay let me straighten you guys out. Except for Sam who has got it spot on. The steaks in the U.S. are overall better then they usually are in France, the U.K. or in Italy. I never see the meat in Europe that is anywhere as marbled as the way it is in the states. Steaks here are simply "beefier." But they are also have a certain chew to them, tough but not too, that beef anywhere else doesn't seem to be able to match. But I have also been served some terrific steaks in Europe. If you get the right cut of Charolais, Bazas. Chianina, or even Angus from Scotland beef you can eat really well. There are two schools of thinking here. There is the one that says that U.S. beef is better, and there is the one that says that U.S. beef is just different, and that European beef is just as good. I have to say that where I come down on this is to say that U.S. beef is superior to European beef. Not that I don't like eating the steaks in Europe. Quite often you will find me ordering a cote de boeuf or a steak frittes as my diner. There is much merit to the beef there. But I just think the meat in the U.S. has something special about it which pushes it over the top. More texture then elsewhere. And if I can point to any corroborating evidence it's the French diners that I often run into in NYC's better steakhouses. It says something that they aren't dining in Daniel, but they are dining at The Palm. The second issue is Macrosan's point about why he goes into a restaurant. I have to say that I go for exactly the opposite reasons. Before I sit down to eat, I want a complete reference point as to what is going to be on my plate. Since dining is ultimately a comparitive experience, I need to calibrate my taste buds accordingly so I have the proper reference points to apply against what they are going to serve. So when Peter makes the point that he wants to eat "real Italian food," that statement means something to me. I eat Italian food in NYC all of the time but it is hardly ever real Italian food. By that I mean evoking the sense and spirit of Italy. Though I'm not the hugest fan, Babbo does a good job of approaching a meal as if you were in Italy. But then there are restaurants like Il Mulino, while widely popular, that have nothing to do with what you would get in Italy. As for dining in Rome (and Venice since Circeplum's old note has been revived,) I think they are two of the worst places to eat in Italy. Not that you can't have good meals in either place, they just pale in comparison to some of the food available elsewhere.

Lxt - I didn't say he would tell them to take their own feelings into consideration, I said he would tell them to *play with feeling.* There is a difference between a flat performance and someone playing with feeling. Maybe you never heard Vladimir Horowitz play piano but he played with a tremendous amount of feeling and passion. That is quite different then the technical skill he possessed and displayed. It's the difference between playing it right and playing it well. The analogy I was making was that Ducasse doesn't cook (either he nor his surrogates) with passion. Okay I will amend my statement to say "recognizing what was going to be important and writing it all down" You are becoming almost as pedantic as some of our British brothers AHR - As I tried to explain to Lxt above, soul is the way one *performs* their art or craft. It is something that gets to the essence of why something is what it is. Katz's pastrami has soul, 2nd Avenue Deli's does not. And Schmulka Bernstein's pastrami had even more soul then Katz's, as did Pastrami King back in the old days. Those versions got to the heart of what pastrami was all about. Certainly you must see that in food and ingredients all of the time. Places with soulful marinara sauces and places that just go through the motions and it tastes perfectly fine but unexciting. That's the point I was making about Ducasse. The emphasis isn't on a thrilling performance. As Fat Guy said, the emphasis is on perfection which I find a bit cold. Especially when we are talking about food. JD - I think when Cabrales means innovative she isn't referring to inventing a different way to poach scallops. She is talking about making new and original dishes. Or ways to serve a meal. What you described is an innovation that diners wouldn't notice unless the change accounted for their proclaiming it was delicious to an extent that they never experienced before. Ducasse's innovations have less direct meaning to diners. An example of a dish having direct meaning would be Senderen's Canard Apicius. A new and different taste and approach to serving a roast duck. And after one procliams delight at eating the dish, it then has an entire history to learn about, and then the chef can get credit for making the dish contemporary. Aside from those remarks, I would like to get this thread back on track to my point. I am not disputing Ducasse's abilities as a chef. Nor do I think how he will be perceived in the future is of much importance to my point either. And whether you are willing to accept the proffer of perfection as an aesthetic (esthetic?) or not, none of that speaks to my point about him. And a comparison with Passard or any other chef isn't relevent to the point either. Here is the very simple thing I am pointing out about him. For someone who the professionals in the food industry have annointed as king, I have not been served any food in his establishments that would evidence his worthiness. Now of course that could be the result of two occassions where they weren't working at their best for some reason or another. But my experience is corroborated over and over again by people who eat there and who don't like it. In fact as I said earlier, a vast majority of people I speak to who eat at Ducasse come away with a thumb's down review. Second point is that aside from Fat Guy, I don't know of any fans that he has that are loyal and fervent supporters the way people support some other chefs. Using Passard as an example, I meet people from time to time who do not go to Paris without taking a meal at Passard. Robuchon was the same way. In fact I have a friend who used to eat at Robuchon everyday when he was in Paris. He ate at the restaurant something like 40+ times. Maybe Ducasse has fervent supporters like that but I have never met them. And to be honest about it, there isn't a buzz about him among the dining cognscenti. And if anything there is a negative buzz. The most typical comment I hear is that people walk away feeling there is an "emperor's new clothes" aspect about the guy and his establishments. And to be consitent with Fat Guy's observation that he has his stars because he is a great chef, not vice-versa, the negative vibe that exists around Ducasse is strictly a product of his not delivering the proffer he makes about his establishments and himself on people's plates. Because if people were having fabulous meals at his establishments, that is what you would hear on the foodie street. There is no conspiracy amongst foodies against Ducasse. Finally I want to address the point of codification and the era that Ducasse is living in. History used to rely on codifcation. By that I mean that Bach, like Shakespere, and even Louis Armstrong, lived in a time where very little was recorded (I mean written down) properly. If you were fastidious in writing down the various harmonic combinations that occured out of the music of your period, there is very little existent today to challenge your authority. That isn't the case today. There is much in print about food and recipes, and so much prose about how those recipes were executed in restaurants that I can't imagine that Ducasse will get credit for what he didn't invent in the way that Bach and the others might have been able to get credit for it. That's why I'm sort of outraged to hear that Ducasse is going to get credit *just because he wrote it down.* My threshold for the entitlement to be the codifier(and claim invention) in the times we live in is inventing it. And so far aside from a few cooking techniques that might have improved the craft, I don't see his entitlement. Nobody here has offered a single reason for why he is entitled other then his quest for perfection. And this is where I see the main dispute with Ducasse laying. And I think it is also where his negative publicity arises from. It is the inference he wants us to draw fom his being prolific, from his quest for perfection, his operating starred establishments in mulitple locations, he believes, and his supporters do as well, that the formula adds up to our having to acknowledge that he is the most important chef of our time. But then there are guys like me who say, wait a second, wait a second, I don't care how many starred establishments you operate. And I don't care how prolific a writer you are. And I don't care how many chefs have bought your books and are reading them into the wee hours of the morning. I'm stuck on how come my meal, and the meals eaten by the majority of people I meet, weren't delicious to the point where we think you are deserving of any of this? A fancy way of saying the proof is in the pudding. The second point as it relates to the difference between the time period is we can now record the quality of the performance. Nobody knows how Bach performed his compositions. He might have offered quite mediocre performances that were inferior to lesser composers (or codifiers I should say,) but who had the ability to give stirring performances. But there is so much written about food these days. Just look at this site. 200 years from now it is possible that someone will have access to these words and they might be able to use them to mount a campaign against Ducasse's worthiness. There is hardly a historical example for that. But there is also a sub-issue about performance that goes to the heart of my argument. The only issue that interests me is what is on my plate. That K-Paul's redfish will go down in history is only a secondary issue in the dining experience. The viewpoint of the diner is blind to every argument about historical merit. The issue raised here is about happiness and profundity when dining. And that always brings us back to originality, creativity, and passion combined with good execution. Something that a wide contingency of people feel is necessary to make a great meal, and something that contingent of people feel is lacking from their experience at Ducasse. And to be clear, not the theoretical Ducasse, the one on paper with all the accomplshments. I'm talking about the actual Ducasse that they serve you when you go to his restaurants. Because if when analyzing his merits you do so on the basis of raising anything else other then what is on your plate and how it makes you feel, you are allowing your knowledge of how a restaurant works and how the food is put together to interfere with the narrative. And I will take this a step further and say that the reason people throw up this particular defense of Ducasse is that he really doesn't have a strong narrative (thank you Robert.) In fact despite my asking repeatedly, the only answer I get in that regard is "perfectionism." And I wonder if that really qualifies in the first place when perfect execution is only one of many important aspects of a meal.

Actually on rereading this I realized there is another answer. What makes it more manageable is that they don't have the burden of "moving the dinner." Like Schaem said about Gagnaire and Passard, they take chances, they are innovative and bold. There is more to that then taking chances on recipes and combinations. There is applying the artists hand to their work that makes the end product unique. It's the difference between the conductor taking the orchestra through rehearsals and saying to them I want you to play it perfectly and saying to them that perfection is important but what is more important is to play it with feeling. But if that describes you as a chef you aren't relevent. Why should you be? You know if I didn't know you guys were talking about Alain Ducasse, one could get the idea that you are talking about a teacher at a cooking school like the CIA.

Robert B. - I'm flattered that you think I have more talent then Ms. Wells. Can you phone my agent? I think a chef's dish can be considered a classic if nobody ever copies it. How many people make the Troisgros salmon with sorrel? I never see it on menus anywhere, although there might have been a point in time when it was widely copied. But that doesn't mean it isn't a classic dish. The key is how well the dish is know in the circles of people who eat at this level. The Academy so to speak. I'm pretty big on the concept that fame is a function of an artist's greatest moments. Few artists (including chefs) have everlasting fame without there being a single thing to point to that evidences their technique and how they applied it. Blackened redfish and Cajun popcorn did more for Paul Prudhome's reputation then 25 other dishes put together. Long after Emeril is forgotten because he has gone the way of the Galloping Gourmet, people will still talk about Prudhome's signature dishes. Fat Guy - I don't think Nobu's cuisine is bolder then a three star restaurant, it's just original and it breaks from tradition. Bold in the sense of innnovtive yes. But not as in being difficuly to execute. But on the other hand, there is no correlation between being difficult to execute and being interesting either.

Cabrales has made the point very well. It isn't that other chefs do not strive to make perfect cuisine, it's that other chefs have not sacrificed innovation for perfection. But when I'm in Paris later this month, I'm going to go to ADPA and order the "Striving for Perfection" menu. It features only perfect things, it's cooked perfectly and it's served perfectly too. And when you leave you feel perfect as well. Because that's the whole point of dining isn't it? I actually have a more cynical view of this. I believe that when Ducasse set out in business he had great aspirations of building an empire. And I believe that he concluded that the only way he could do that successfully while operating his restaurants at a level sufficient to garner the necessary praise and Michelin stars was to strip his cuisine of any boldness so as to make it manageabale for his surrogate chefs. Because one thing doesn't add up about Ducasse. He was a student of Chapel's, who was an innovative chef. How Ducasse came from that background and went the route of conservatism doesn't make any sense to me. It just keeps reminding me of Wynton Marsalis. He's a guy who in the span of two months can release a jazz CD and a classical CD. And everyone talks about how prolific he is. But when you listen to the CD's they are just a bunch of technique. The guys doesn't ever say anything new about jazz. But I will say that his albums are "perfect." If one like the type of perfection that has no innovation, creativity or boldness attached to it. But I guess I'm from the school that says that creativity, innovation and boldness are part of something being perfect.