Steve Plotnicki

"It is similar to comparing jazz with opera. I’d say according to your statement, jazz is “intellectualized” or rather “overly technical” and aside from semantics, of course, cannot exist….or vice versa for that matter. The point is that it is not about comparing best potatoes. It is about comparing a potato foam with potato which is simply irrelevant in evaluation as they represent two completely different substances." Lxt - I think this is about as wrongheaded thinking as can be. And I think Fat Guy in essence says the same exact thing when he talks about starch and my being fixated to a potato in a certain form. That argument is the one that says that I/we won't accept potatoes in a new form and that I am saying that the public won't either. I have never said that. If you read what I said closely you will find that I have stated a number of times that it is entirely possible that in the future people will eat potatoes without the potatoes. However, I find that both of you miss the reason why jazz, opera, or mashed potatoes became popular and stayed popular. Jazz works because it's a musical metaphor for the people who perform it. Somehow in some indescribable way, it encapsulated in music the struggle for freedom in their lives. And in some other indescribable way listeners recognized that upon listening to the music. And not only that, it was popular because the performers while struggling to gain freedom, and respect as human beings, wanted not freedom from, but freedom to participate in a democratic society. Rock & Roll was the same. It expressed something on a primal or visceral level to teenagers that had to do with the constraints society imposed on them in the 50's & 60's. It sounded like the freedom they wanted to gain from the silly things their parents believed in. Now maybe I don't have my metaphors down perfectly but, what I'm trying to say is that the harmonic and rhythmic structure, as well as the lyrics, evoked natural emotions that were out of the listener's control. Those types of emotions cannot be artificially created by enculturation. An artist and his audience communicate without speaking to each other in a natural and spontaneous way. One could not have artificially constructed "jazz." It depended on real live circumstances. You needed slaves on boats who came to America and couldn't speak English so they had to improvise to end up with jazz. That can't be made in a laboratory. But not only was it important for jazz to be a natural occurence for the performers, it's popularity depended on the listeners ability to relate. They needed to feel some level of oppression in their own lives that made them feel akin to the musicians. Jazz needed to be both a mateaphor for the musicians, and the listeners. That's the silent bargain of art. Hence that brings us to the mashed potatoes and what type of metaphor they were when they came on the scene. Because they are a metaphor for our lives just like jazz is. And I've seen a number of descriptions of the Robuchon potatoes on this site. I've read John Whiting describe them as making the affluent diners at Robuchon feel "comfortable." And I've said that Robuchon by increasing the proportions to half potato half butter and cream was daring in his being willing to increase them until he actually got it right, i.e., hit a metaphor. So which is it, was Robuchon a genius or did he notice something about his customers? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter. So that brings us to Adria. And as much as Lxt and Fat Guy would like the question to be, Could we appreciate potato foam as much as the mashed potatoes if we were weaned on them? I find that not even relevent to the discussion at all. The question is when we eat potato foam, does it make the same type of primal or visceral statement to us that mashed potatoes made, i.e., is it a metaphor for our lives? And maybe it is a metaphor for certain people's lives. I'm sure there were people who took to Schoenberg like fish take to water. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether enough people will take to potato foam so that it will replace mashed potatoes as being the pantheon of haute cuisine. In otherwords, will the potato foam strike the same chord in people the mashed potatoes struck. And while Adria's cuisine has obviously struck many different chords, I can't find any evidence that it has struck that particluar chord. And I believe (and I think Marcus and Robert B. think this as well) that it is what that makes things great, and that is what makes things last. Great inventions are defined by the people who use them.

"Intimidation seems to be the only logical answer - unless you can think of something else." Let me ask you. Intimidation by who? The steak mafia? Fat Guy, are you intimidated by Peter Luger? Wouldn't you write a bad review of PL if you had a shitty meal there? In fact I recently went to the PL in Great Neck and had a pretty bad meal there for Luger standards. The steak didn't seem to be as aged as what I'm used to in Bkln, and the butter sauce was on the sour side. There, I wrote about a bad meal there and I wasn't intimidated by anyone. But the two eGullet lunch meals I had this past year were superb.

Fat Guy - But we all acknowledged that point posts ago. Everybody is willing to concede that at some point in time, palates might be recalibrated to the point where one can enjoy a potato without the need for actually eating one. But your question was, "do these chefs run rings around the chefs of yore?" And our answer was that the chefs of yore actually served potatoes. And while the modern chefs have great technical wizardry, and possibly serve more interesting dishes then the chefs of yore, for people like me and Robert, the issue comes down to, who serves the best potatoes? Not who serves the best resemblence of potatoes. It's who serves the best potatoes? That we also used the phrase "intelectualized" to decribe the Adria potatoes is really irrelevent. Call it overly technical instead. The issue isn't semantics, it's whether the best potatoes can exist without the potatoes being there.

I will be with 2 other couples but I thought I might come into town a night early by myself for an eGullet dinner. I'm not sure where we will be eating the second night. Patrice's review of Trio has me intrigued. What do you think? Or how is Frontera Grill these days? That used to be an old favorite of mine.

What word we use to describe whether Adria's cooking will have relevence of not is of no importance to the point. So it's the wrong word. The dispute about relevency remains. I'm surprised at Lxt. She usually does better than that .

Aside from how the management treats it employees, I vote thumbs up. It's been there for at least 2-3 decades and it's the size of a city block along Woodhaven Blvd.

"My opinions about '78 Bordeaux or PL are in the minority but can't be definitively measured through any mathematical scale." Well since you're the only person in the whole f*cking universe who thinks that I beg to differ that it can't be mathematically quantified. Wilfird's attorney friend has it right. You might not like the Luger style, but there is no denying it isn't there.

I've been at least two dozen times but not in the last 3-4 years. I think the place is okay. It is a typical, out of Manhattan, classic fish house that offers everything from steamed lobsters, fish and chips, linguine with seafood in a marinara sauce and a large selection of good fish that they will prepare anyway you want. It's a large place and there is usually a line waiting to get in, especially on the weekends. We used to stop there on our way home from the Hamptons but my kids didn't like the place. But if you told me we were having dinner there tonight I wouldn't object. Why do you ask?

Sorry Rich But I haven't said anything about your person. Just your opinion about PL's, Bern's and the vintages of wines you have posted on. And while it's easy for most people here to judge for themselves about Luger's because they have been, most people don't know what I'm talking about when I say 1978 vs 1982 vintage in Bordeaux. Let me try and make a good analogy. Okay, it's like saying Ray Ordonez is better than Derek Jeter. Or maybe that John Starks is better than Michael Jordon. Or that the Chrysler Building is taller than the Empire State Building. Or that the speed of sound is faster than the speed of light. I can make a million of them.

You have to be suspect of the opinion of a person who believes that the 1978 vintage in Bordeaux (this is Rich I'm talking about) is a better vintage than 1982 or some other good years. It's kind of like saying the '69 Mets were a better team then the '27 Yankees. Except the '69 Mets were a good team and the '78 vintage in Bordeaux was not a particularly good vintage. So like someone here said, everyone here is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean their opinion isn't wrong. Now, I've never been to Bern's Steak House but I've had many a friend who has been and to a person they proclaim it fine but kind of mediocre. But even worse then that, to be able to go to Peter Luger's and not be able to tell that they have something special going on there, one should check into a food college and take steak 101. Whether you like the taste or not, it is a totally unique approach to steak all the way from the aging process to the cooking method. It's a one of a kind steak and there ain't nothing else like it. Fartig. But to prefer Smith & Wollinksy, a totally indistinguishable steak to PL is meshugah. And anyone who has that opinion knows bubkas about steak. In fact the meat council should ban them from eating the stuff.

Lxt - Thanks for that answer that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If you read through this thread, it is not a diatribe about whether the avante garde ever has any merit. We all agree it does. Rather the question here is will paying customers, meaning people who go to eat for sensual pleasure today, not 300 years from now, have the same fervor for this style of cuisine as as they had for the "chefs of yore." Or will the techniques practiced by this school of chefs never properly integrate into because it is too "wrapped up" in technique, and it doesn't pay enough attention to the natural qualities of food which is what made the chefs of yore so popular to begin with?

Why would this make a difference to anyone providing the food and service is good? There have been many famous restauranteurs over the years. Vrinat at Taillevent, Maccioni at Le Cirque, Danny Meyer, Henri Soule at Le Pavillon. Many a good meal has been served in those restaurants. They just needed to employ good chefs. But obviously, when great chefs own their own restaurants you are assured the chef is good. But then they need to hire good managers. So I'm straining to see the difference.

"Is there a serious interest in this?" Does a bear take a shit in the woods after a big dinner?

A few things here. First, I'm available the first three weekends in May. Who is coming and who is organizing it? Second, Fat Guy, you're post is full of issues you have highlighted where you don't even realize it. For example, is it that there is nothing that Parmesan ice cream can be compared to or is parmesan ice cream a revelation for chefs but an irrellevency for the paying public, aside from the utmost fanatics? As for his being the world's most famous chef, well that's true but famous for what? For the most interesting meal? Absolutely. For the best meal? Depends on how you define best. For the most delicious meal? Nobody is claiming that I don't think. But if we are going, I say that Thursday and Friday at El Bulli, after warmups at Saint Pau, L'Esguard and El Raco des con Fabes. I'm hungry already.

Is Warren Buffet a buffet? I just thought as long as we were going down the road to a pedantic definition of buffet that I would throw that one in. Or how about Bernard Buffet the painter. Buffets suck. But I like to partake in them on occassion. Usually they have at least one dish you can settle in with. East Lake Buffet in Flushing has crab legs and bacon wrapped shrimp. The Bellagio in Las Vegas, which I thought really sucked as a buffet, even though it's famous for being the best Vegas buffet, had some sliced meat that was excellent although I can't remember whether it was lamb or beef. The breakfast buffet at Paris in Las Vegas was a far, far better buffet than the Bellagio although it was still to bufettish for me. Cold buffets that are full of things like various sliced salmon dishes and herrings, tuna, white fish salads can be excellent and tend to work out the best. Things that are hot obviously loose quality sitting in those chafing dishes. But the main point about a buffet isn't to eat good, it's to eat a lot for a fixed price. If it's good, it's a tremendous bonus. And the reason for eating at a buffet is to practice the ritual of buffet eating. It's not about gastronomy.

Nesita - Nobody in the food trade could write an opening post that aproximates Lima Bean's miscue about P.L.'s. I am certain years from now, Lima will look back at that review and say to himself (or herself) "what was I thinking about?" But that's why newbies come here no? To learn. I came here to learn from Fat Guy. Look at where that got me.

Well I went easy on him. Because I have always found the steaks they serve at The Post House and Smith & Wollinsky's, while not bad steaks, inferior to the better steaks in town. To question Luger's superiority, while extolling the virtues of steaks that are closer to mediocrity than greatness raises serious questions. Aside from the fact that he could have been there on an off night, or have gotten a bad steak, stories like this always remind me of a wine tasting dinner I went to at Kensington Place in London about 4 years ago. There was a bottle of 1970 Latour there and the wine was off the charts good. But at the end of the night, someone who was an acquaintance of mine from a wine chat room came all the way over from his end of the table and sat down next to me. He said, "tell me, what about this wine is great? I don't get it. To me it tastes like......," I can't remember exactly what he compared it to but let's say it was shoe leather. And no matter how I explained it to him it didn't help. You see the problem layed in his tongue, not beneath the stars in the vineyards. And to this day the guy still doesn't get mature wine.

Gee I was hoping I didn't have to say this but, anyone who eats at Luger's and who can't taste the superiority of their steak, can't taste to begin with. But of course, that doesn't mean you can't go on an off night which has happened to me. But all in all, it's the one steakhouse I know that has created a proprietary taste to their steaks. It's a combination of the meat they choose, their method of aging and the way they cook the steaks which has been explained on this thread. In fact the number of Luger copycats are a tribute to just how unique their steaks are. From the Embers in Briarcliff Manor, to MarkJoseph in lower Manhattan, to the now defunct Dar Tiffany in Nassau County, to Knickebocker's on University Place and I'm sure there are others I don't know about, all those places are trying to copy the Luger signature. To go there and to not get that out of it means something is wrong. Lima Bean, are you sure you really went there? How much steak experience do you really have? Or maybe you need to go back there with either Fat Guy or myself for a steak crash course?

"Okay, but that's a different line of argument that has nothing to do with the nature of a potato. You're just saying you want a potato-based dish to be good whether it tastes like a potato or not, right?" No I'm saying that we are all used to potato dishes being the starch in our meal, not the foam in our meal. And to convince a significant percentage of the paying public that a potato has merit in the form of foam, when they see its merit in a form of starch that is recognizeable to them, is a very long road to hoe. In fact, that road has an end that might never be reached. But then I am taking it one step further. I am saying that in order to convince people that foam is preferrable, or even as good as a real potato, it has to come with the proffer that the flavor has been improved. And it isn't that I am saying that Adria can't do that, it's just that as much as I've read about the guy, there isn't a single statement that I ever read that makes the claim that anything he has ever made is an improvement. An intensification of the flavor, or an extraction of the flavor, or the transposition of the flavor onto new and unusual textures, yes you hear that all of the time. But never have I heard a single person say that Adria's ____________, are the best tasting _____________ i ever ate.

" If I could prove to you that Adria's potato foam tastes more like a potato than Robuchon's mashed potatoes, would that change your mind? I'm not saying I can prove it; I'm just asking the question rhetorically. In other words, I think your argument is more about familiarity than it is about potatoes" That's only part of it. You would have to show me I can derive the same pleasure from eating the foam as I get from eating the mashed potatoes. That's the part we keep pointing to which Showalter pointed to in her Betty Fussel quotes. Eating is an activity. It's like riding a bike, or swimming or listening to music or having sex. We like doing the activity. Things that are ancillary to the activity like exhileration, challenging our intelect etc., have reduced meaning outside of the context of doing the activity. I can be convinced that over time, in fact I'm already convinced, that eating will become more of a cerebral experience and a less primal one. But I find it hard to believe that will happen to a degree you and I would describe as radical any time soon. But I could be wrong.

"There's no question that a discussion about who's "the greatest" and who's "the most influential" in any field might make for two very different discussion," But between Trane and Coleman, there was a way to calculate who was going to be more influential. Trane's greatest playing, and his playing that was the most influential, is about three things if not more. Reharmonizing bop chord changes in a unique but recognizeable way, applying new technique in order to take advantage of the reharmonization, and acheiving a high level of sprituality in his playing. Coleman's music is only about eliminating the constraints of form to achieve a greater level of freedom. That might be a great intelectual (and emotional concept to certain people) but it made his music unrecognizeable as jazz for almost everybody else. So you have Coltrane(recognizeable) vs Coleman (unregonizeable.) Tada. This is why some of us say that potatoes need to be potatoes at the end of the day for the technique to have maximum impact.

Fat guy - Well if you do it the right way you won't lose money. "Nonsense, and when you make state thse opinions as fact, you close the door on meaningful discussion." Bux - You've not only lost me, you've made a silly point about my being close-minded. Tell me, who when they heard about Robuchon's mashed potatoes didn't understand that he was going to serve you "mashed potatoes?" And who when they are eating potatoes these days can't tell that they are eating them? Where is the confusion about potatoes in today's cuisine? Am I missing something here? Are there legions of potato illiterates out there? I just want to keep drawing the distinction in this thread that I have drawn from the beginning. The issue isn't whether Adria will have an impact, he already did. The issue is how much of an impact and upon whom? If as a result of his techniques the people on this site try to foam things, dehydrate things and freeze them, extract the essence of absolutely anything in order to "enhance the flavor," etc. then I will admit that his contributions are meaningful. But if what is absorbed is merely a few flourishes from his technique, just like the occassional Schoenenberg concept or a Coleman passage find their way into more popular forms of music, then he will be viewed differently. There really isn't anything else to argue about. Because I can recall countless conversations in the 60's about who was more important. Coltrane or Ornette Coleman. And while the jury is always technically out on those issues, Coltrane is viewed as the dominant personality of the 20th century in regards to freedom of expression on his insturment. And Coleman, whose playing is freer than Coltrane's ever was, is forgotten except to the hardest core fans. Too much about art and not enough about the pleasure of listening to music.

I'll second that nomination. Let us know when it's done.

"It seems to me that if you want to be serious about the intellectual direction of cuisine then Plotnicki comes closer to the mark when he worries about the abandonment of goodness in favor of shock value." Fat Guy - Thanks for putting me in a league with Showalter. But I don't think I am really saying that Adria has abandoned goodness for shock value. Rather I think (and this is only a possibility because it is too soon to tell, and Steve Klc might be correct when he says that in the future his cuisine will be seen as "soulful,) that where the avant garde usually goes wrong, regardless of discipline, is too put too much emphasis on one aspect which eliminates the "essence" of what attracted people to that discipline in the first place. Lxt - Hey didn't I make that point yesterday when I said that many things that seem abstarct and tangential today become part of the common lexicon we use in the future? And it might very well be the case that Scoenenberg is considered greater than Mozart, or Coleman greater than Bird, or Adria greater than Escoffier. But it maight take 10 years, 200 years. And then again, it might never happen.

Fat Guy - You are not going to like my answer because it comes from the "can't pin it down exactly school." Or maybe it's the "I know porno when I see it" school. But a potato isn't a potato when the person eating it doesn't get the sensation of eating a potato while doing it. That's the point Marcus was trying to make when he spoke about Schoenenberg. It looks like classical music, it smells like classical music, and it even has the touch and feel of classical music. And on paper everything about it is the essence of classical music (I snuck that word in on purpose .) Yet the general classical audience rejected it as an avant garde or an abstract tangent of classical music. In simple words, and I know you hate this answer, it didn't move them emotionally like classical music moved them for the 300 years prior. Too intelectual. Not enough of the primal thing that draws a person to classical music in the first place. And I can say the same thing about Ornette Coleman. It's music for jazz intelectuals. Charlie Parker made music for jazz fans. And to tell the difference between them all you have to do is to listen to them.