Steve Plotnicki

One more thing, there isn't anybody I know who has more experience eating at three star restaurants then Robert B. and Cabrales. Not only have they probably gone more times then anyone, they are not eating set menus and are asking the chefs to prepare the whole hog for them. So the claim that Bux or Steve Klc or anyone erlse has more experience is a little outrageous. And Marcus seems to have been eating this stuff since the 60's too. It's funny because during the time she's been away, I've been getting Liziee's notes from France by email. Amazingly, they mostly echo all of the sentiments that my side of the argument has been making. Wait until you read her reviews of Arpege, Ducasse and a few others.

Fat Guy - It's not a new set of arguments, it's the same old argument. What aesthetic message does Ducasse offer his diners? And it has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with how we view the world and what our priorities our. What I do say is that history shows that he who has the greatest technique and who applies it in the most original and creative way is the one who is best remembered. That is why I keep asking what Ducasse will be remembered for. Being the greatest chef of his time? I can't accept that answer because to me the proof is in the pudding and I can't taste that from his food. And despite my requests, nobody can enlighten me as to exactly what it is that I am missing and what the aesthetic is that he will be remembered for.

Fat Guy - This is one of the rare times that Hollywood got it right. Good work! You can trademark Swordchop because it is a constructed word and that would be entitled to a trademark or possibly a copyright. If nobody ever used the phrase before, there would be no confusion as to what people are talking about the used the phrase. Same with Pastrami Salmon. But you couldn't get a trademark called, "Swordfish steak cut in the shape of a veal chop" or "Salmon that has been smoked and cured like pastrami" any sooner then you could trademark Scrambled Eggs or the world Omelet. Those desriptions don't capture anything unique. They are just plain English and that doesn't qualify as intelectual property. But if you were to bring a product on the market called "Thirty Second Eggs," and it were to describe an instant way of making scrambled eggs or an omelet, that you could get a trademark for. I assume you have trademarked "Fat Guy." And if you have, that would entitle you to the exclusive use of the phrase. But that wouldn't mean you could stop people from using the phrase in a sentence. "Steve Shaw is a fat guy is english. Steve Shaw is Fat Guy is a trademark.

Gee this thread is all over the place. Let me see if I can say the same thing in a less adversarial way. There are a number of ways to evaluate a restaurant (we're talking Michelin starred cuisine here, or the equivelent.) First there is the food and it's virtues. For example, certain people value creative cuisine and others value simple but perfectly executed cuisine more than creativity. People who like Taillevent as their favorite restaurant would be an example of this. While an enjoyable place, one can hardly make the case that Taillevent serves the world's best food. So obviously if it's your favorite restaurant cutting edge food is not your top priority. Then of course there are people who weigh the entire experience. What kind of flowers are on the table, what China they use, how excessive the service is and how many desserts are on the trolly. It means something to them. Then there are people who are interested in cutting edge food. They go to the restaurant to have the chef communicate something to them about what they are eating, and even more importantly, something about themselves. Those people have yet a third way to prioritize the dining experience. So if I am in the third category, and if my fellow diners who have similar sentiments allow me to ask this on their behalf, exactly what is it that Ducasse is communicating to his diners? Because I have no quarrel with his technique, his proficiency, his ability to run a restaurant, or anything else he does. But none of that is important to me because it doesn't seem to make any statement other then "I am a great chef." And no matter what you want to call the group of people who feel that way, whether it be discerning diners, people of "good taste," or people who look at haute cuisine as art, so far nobody has answered the question of how Ducasse can be a great chef without offering an interesting aesthetic? And when you say that he is considered the greates chef in the world by X, Y & Z, those are all groups of people who have adopted a different standard then we have. Because the way we measure it, he's just a luxury chain restaurant. And that is because when we have dined there Ducasse failed to express something of himself on a personal level. But Passard, who in your own words is not as good a chef as Ducasse, not as technically proficient and who runs an establishment that is clearly inferior to the grandiosity of Ducasse, is someone who has a unique point of view. What unique point of view has Ducasse expressed?

Fat Guy - Yes the Big Mac would be a signature dish of McDonald's. But it is also a trademark of its own. Not the preparation, the name. The name is unique so you can trademark it. What you can't get a trademark for is a dish called"Grilled New York Strip Steak." Too generic. But you can be famous for serving a great strip steak and it can be your signature dish. The filet mignon of tuna at USC is a good example. Not trademarkable, but identifiable with the restaurant. Wilfrid - Tne Waltuck seafood sausage is a copy from Taillevent. Though Waltuck is famous for serving his version of the dish.

As much as it pains me , I have to agree with Monsieur Johnson here. I am of the school that believes that creators should be given an opportunity to explain their work. But their explanation or reasoning shouldn't be binding on people assessing the quality of the work. As for this particular comment; I am consistant in my statements. It's not a popularity contest among everyone, I keep limiting my comments to the people I know who eat at that level and their opinions. It's my own Acadamy. And quite deserving as well. The rest of you can buy into a different theory of aesthetics. Not me.

Wow that's news to me. I guess I was grandfathered in because I was a member of the board they acquired back in February. But nobody ever asked me for money.

Gavin - Being implicit in the brand is not the same as the brand itself. For example, the Troisgros family can get a trademark for the name of their restaurant based on it being unique. But they cannot get a trademark for the name of the dish "Saumon en sauce d'Oiselle" because there is nothing distinctive about it. Anyone can make salmon with sorrel sauce. But the whole idea of a signature is that someone has made something that is so superior, the use of common words that you are normally not able to protect by law become associated with a brand in a way that it immediately identifies the brand. You might not find that much of a distinction but in a court that distinction would be enormous. Stephen T. - While your definition is technically correct, when I use the word brand, there is an inference that the people who are offering the brand are trying to promote it to their partilcuar market. If you take food in London, Conran has one type of brand, Gordon Ramsey another. Belgo has a different type. And then you have Chez Bruce which although could be turned into a brand, isn't marketed as a brand at all. No "branding" takes place at Chez Bruce. It's all about letting the food speak for itself.

Gavin - As much as you would like to confuse the issue.... Anything can be a brand as long as you market it as a brand name. And if Fergus marketed his bone marrow salad as a brand name then that's how it would be percieved. But he doesn't communicate his brand by putting the name "Bone Marrow Salad" on a sign above his restaurant with a picture of it. The name of his establishment is St. John whether you like that or not. And if he was to market a brand, it would most likely be associated with St. John or with him. And while Bone Marrow Salad could be a brand if he chose to market it as a brand, I think that champage, confiture, jars of spice etc. would look odd if their labels said "Bone Marrow Salad." Fergus Henderson's Special Blend Champagne is more like it don't you think?

Lots of people have brands that they don't promote and which are very successful. Many of the three star chefs have great reputations, but have not spent much time turning themselves into brands. But then there are chefs who are tireless self promoters like Bocuse, Ducasse and Gordon Ramsey. They have turned their names into brands.

Except that Salmon with Sorrel sauce is not a product. It's a dish. That's why it isn't a brand. But you could brand the establishment that serves that dish which would be Troisgros. Fergus Henderson's bone marrow salad is not a brand. Fergus Henderson, now he can be a brand.

Yes via the creation of signature dishes. Not by self-promoting and doing mailings about how great you are. Branding has nothing to do with anything but promoting your name. Caeser Salad fits, but branding doesn't .

Jones you're a trouble maker. Branding has nothing to do with signature dishes. It;s a word of mouth thing. Branding has to do with advertising and self-promotion. Fat Guy - I was only at Blanc once in 1984 (didn't like the place) and it didn't have foie gras as far as I recalled. In fact the Poulet Bresse from Blanc is an important signature dish because it is a milemarker in Burgundian cuisine. Bourg-en-Bresse is a short drive from Vonnas and here is a dish made from local cows and their milk, and I'm sure that the butter they use is local as well. It's amazing how many Alan Wong dishes are getting listed. The guy really is an underrated chef. If he worked on the mainland he would probably be the most famous Asian Fusion chef.

All the positive posts about Ducasse on this thread add up to one thing, luxury (and proficency is part of luxury.) I am sure you are all right when you say, as Marcus did, that the meal was "succulent." But so what? I keep talking about creativity and cooking that is interesting. So far nobody has offered anything about Ducasse that is interesting. In fact, even among the positive reports there is an admission that the goal of the food isn't to be creative. Lxt - But there are many different types acadamys. There is the Chicago School of Business and what a disaster the world would be if their view was the exclusive school of thought. Then there is the UC Davis school of winemaking and look how their philosophy took the joy and complexity out of the finished product of wine. Then if you have been reading your recent publications, there is the Columbia School of Journalism who is the loftiest in its field and who managed to make their degree worthless. Then of course there are places like the Bauhaus where the contribution of the "Acadamy" is enormous. Gee you really don't pay attention do you. I have said that Ducasse, in spite of his technical proficiency does not convert it into an intersting aesthetic. In fact if you read the thousands of posts I have placed on this board, that is always my theme. So you don't ever forget it again I will repeat the phrase I must have used 100 times; "the application of technique" So it isn't enough to be a great carpenter. One has to build a fantastic cabinet with the technique. And what I have said in this instance is that I often find that professionals in a field (including in my own industry) are more interested in how the cabinet is built, and make decisions about quality based on that standard, and relegate how beautiful or interesting the cabinet is to a secondary position. Well they don't put a piece of cabinetry in a museum because the tongue and groove technique is perfect. They put it in because of the aesthetic it communicates to the viewer. It can be glued together for all they care. Good cabinetmaking is not a preprequisite to greatness in design. Fat Guy - People who don't really know about haute cuisine and people who have heard about his greatness from publications. It's the same crowd who goes to see Wynton Marsalis because they heard that "jazz is good." There's a guy who is the greatest jazz musician of his time, and who has never made a single recording that anybody I know who knows anything about jazz likes. And don't get me wrong. Wynton Marsalis is a fabulous musician with technique that is worthy of being the definition of the word in the dictionary. I have seen the guy play in a tiny club and he is fantastic. But his recordings are institutionalized. They are without the spirit that made the music great in the first place. That is exactly how I feel about Ducasse. Like Wynton he knows how to hit all the right notes, but he plays them with no soul. He has eliminated spirit, creativity and soulfulness from the dining experience because his business plan demands that he institutionalize and internationalize haute cuisine. Bux - I have tasted his food. If you read above, I was at ADNY in March 2000 and Monte Carlo 10 years ago. And I haven't said his food is bad. His food can be very good. But I have said that his food isn't creative and is uninteresting and those are the reasons I frequent restaurants in this category. And more importantly, I've said that I don't have much desire to go back. That's the biggest statement I can make. Marcus - Oh how easy business would be if people in the trade were always right and consumers were always wrong. Fat Guy - I'm going to remember you said this when we are sitting at El Bulli and the first 17 courses are liquids or are served on popsicle sticks.

Peter - Demi-Deuill, or chicken in half morning is a different dish. It's one where they seperate the skin of the chicken from the breast and place thinly sliced black truffles inside. Then they roast the chicken. It's possible that Careme invented the dish but the most famous version is from La Mere Brazier in Lyon. But Bocuse makes a famous haute cuisine version of the dish as well. Blanc's chicken dish is like a fricasse with a cream sauce that is dotted with bits of black truffle.

Well it's like that in everything that the public does. They have their own reality of the world. That's because the purpose of things aesthetic is to communicate something to the diner. Once you get into what the technical aspects are, and you place greater or undue emphasis on them, the thrust of the communication changes from aesthetics to communicating technique. That's the difference between the trade and the public. This happens with every aspect of consumerism. What car the public likes to buy is different then what professionals think is the best car. And clearly professionals would choose a different top selling album each week then the public does. I can make an endless list of things like this to point out the differences between them. But clearly you must be joking about the media promoting signature dishes. There is no greater self-promoter in the field of cooking then Ducasse. He is a guy who hyped his way into six stars strictly on politics. And that he lost a star, for no apparant reason, only means he didn't really deserve it in the first place. For god sakes the guys sends me mail to my home showing pictures of cepes in a sauce of olive oil. Like I've never seen cepes or had olive oil before. That's inventive? You can trot out all the fancy words like nuanced you want. I will stick by what the people on this site feel is the real deal. So far I don't see anyone rushing to defend Ducasse's food other then you and Shaw. As far as I can see, everyone else thinks his food is boring, uncreative, and uninventive. I'll give you nuanced but you have to give me those three.

I actually based on my opinion on eating there. Almost every table hed "Da Bag." Harder to tell if they had Onaga

Steve Klc - You are just espousing what I call the "trade view" of Ducasse. I don't care if 10,000 chefs think he is the best. What chefs think has nothing to do with what the paying public thinks. The world is full of writer's writers, musician's musicians and actors's actors, all forgotten except for educators, historians or people in their own trade if they don't write a famous novel, hit song or star in a film that makes them famous forever. There is a reason that the public has a different view of things then professionals have. They have no vested interest in the outcome and are not biased by the preconceptions of the trade. Chefs, using this example, are wowed by technique. They sit there and they wonder how Ducasse got the chunk of salmon they are eating to come out the way it did. But the public doesn't ever get that far unless they think it's delicious first. There's the big difference. Chefs care why and how for the purposes of work. I just want to enjoy it and if I don't, I don't care if his invention is as important as the wheel. As for Ducasse's dessert trolly, yes it's terrific. And the caramels they serve at the end of the meal are great. But so what? They were not enough to make me reserve again. That is the threshold issue as far as I'm concerned. But I was at Arpege in Ferbruary, again last month and I'm going again the end of October. Yet I haven't been back to Ducasse in NYC since March of 2000, Monte Carlo in maybe 10 years and I've never been in Paris and have no desire to go. You know why? Because dining at Ducasse is merely about having a three star experience. I don't need to do that anymore. I've been there, done that 100 times, and with chefs that have more to offer creatively then Ducasse. What I am interested in is the heightened aesthetics that come from creativity in the kitchen. And so far nobody has told me that heightened aesthetics are available at Ducasse. Unless we are stooping so low that we are going to call Baba au Rhum heightened aesthetics. Puhlease.

Actually I was thinking of including Alan Wong on the list but never got around to it. He's a great chef and way underrated. But do you think these are better choices? Alan Wong - Steamed Clams with Kalhua Pig, Shitake Mushrooms, Spinach in "Da Bag," Hot Califonia Rolls with Kona Lobster Mousse, but with No Rice! Other signature dishes I thought of are; Pourcel Twins - Bonbons de Foie Gras Roger Verge - Zucchini Flowers stuffed with mushrooms and truffles Andre Soltner - Frozen Raspberry Souffle There there are famous dishes associated with bistros; Allard - Duck with Olives La Grille - Turbot with Beurre Blanc A Souseyrac - Lievre Royale (hare in blood sauce) Ambassade D'Auvergne - Aligot Benoit - Beouf Mode

For those who are interested, eRobertparker.com has Robert Parker himself posting a terrific set of tasting notes on 1982 Bordeauxs. They are the result of a recent tasting held by a group he has belonged to for the last ten years. They are quite remarkable notes, and I don't get impressed that easily when it comes to these things. I would post a link but you have to be a member to view the board (membership is free.) Well worthwhile for people who are interested in Bordeaux.

'E's so clever that iron tongue. Yes, I mean 'im.

I want to hear someone's opinion I trust say it. I keep saying over and over again that other then you, nobody *I know* who I think has discerning taste at the three star level likes Ducasse's food. It's not a matter of willfull ignorance. I have tasted his food and he has failed to move me either emotionally or intelectually. These conversations always remind of a conversation I had years ago with a cousin who is a tenor sax player. He tried to convince me that Stan Getz was a better sax player then John Coltrane. Having failed to persuade me as a matter of argument, he then put on some Stan Getz recordings and explained Getz's technique to me on virtually a passage by passage basis, lauding every obligato which switched to a trumpet blare. And no matter how I explained to him that as good a player as Getz was, he didn't move people emotionally or intelectually in the same way Coltrane did. It is no different with Ducasse. It makes no difference how good a chef he is, how many people are impressed with the operation he runs, what type of unique cooking methods he has created to cook foods inside out, etc. His food doesn't seem to move anyone on an emotional or cerebral level. It's namby-pamby middle of the road three star cuisine. And regardless of what you think of Passard, his cuisine inspires emotion and intelect in an entire group of people who are vocal about it. I'm not sure what Ducasse's cuisine inspires other then a big bill. At least Ducasse should be honest and admit that he is just a restauranteur like Vrinat at Taillevent. Because from where I sit that is all he is with the brand name of an ex-chef attached to the restaurant.

My point is limited to fame with the general public that make up who the consumers are in fine dining. Not with the historians and educators who keep score of interesting cooking technique. As to these dishes being limited to achieve general recognition, well general recognition with the public is the only recognition I am dealing with. I am not interested in institutional recognition as chefs can't take that to the bank .

Didn't I put Nobu's Black Cod in Miso on my original list? I thought I did. Sorry about that. It is clearly a signature dish.

Wilfrid - No despite eating at MPW a number of times, I never noticed the scallop dish. But the Waxman chicken is clearly his signature dish. Though there isn't really much dishe there. It's just grilled butterflied chicken.