Pan

Putting our apparent disagreement about "modern" composers aside, I think the best way to put what I'm trying to say is the following: If your answers to the questions "what is the best restaurant in New York?" and "what is your favorite restaurant in New York?" aren't different, you probably are being too purely subjective to be good critic. ← I disagree. You can easily believe that your favorite restaurant is in fact the best. Would it bother you if a critic's favorite restaurant in New York were, say, Alain Ducasse or Per Se, and that critic also believed that was the best restaurant in New York? And why are you presuming we disagree on modern composers? Does that mean you uncritically accept the current "received wisdom," rather than having your own opinion? Part of the problem here is that a good critic should mold rather than receive opinions, don't you think? ← First paragraph: I think that confluence would be total happenstance. Indeed, because of the nature of experience, I think it would be unlikely that the criteria for "best" and "favorite" restaurants would be the same. I mean, how many people are going to list as their "favorite" spot someplace that only serves multi-course multi-hour meals that you have to concentrate on to appreciate? (Same with music. My "favorite" composer is probably Schubert or maybe -- you're never going to take me seriously again -- Poulenc. But the very things that make them my "favorites" mean, to me, that they aren't as "great" as others whose work is more demanding or even just [i'm thinking mainly about Schubert here] better-put-together. Don't get me wrong. I'm not being a puritan. I'm not arguing that the "best" work has to be painful. I'm just saying that the criteria for "favorite" and "best" are often different, and that the kind of comfort level that often makes something your "favorite" can rule out its being the "best.") Second paragraph -- Of course I agree. But on the other hand, if someone just doesn't like, say, atonal music -- and I'm not saying you don't; I'm sure your beef is more with stuff like minimalism and post-modernism -- that dislike alone wouldn't, to me, justify his dismissing, say, Boulez out of hand as a "bad" composer. ← There are different issues here. Competence is a different question from quality of content. I think Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Dallapiccola, and Eissler were great composers. I think that Boulez is a great musician (great conductor) and a very knowledgeable and competent composer, but I do not love his music and tend to consider it too long for his material (a problem many less-than-great composers have, but a subjective determination by the listener). As for Schubert, I _do_ think he is one of the all-time great composers. Why? Hard to say. I think much of his music is very meaningful and colorful (great master of tonal inflections and unexpected modulations), he had one of the greatest melodic gifts, and he was an innovative master of form (compensating for a lack of great contrapuntal fluency by using a process of continuous development and modulation in his Development sections, for example). His 9th Symphony is one of the great monumental symphonies in the literature, and he was probably the greatest of all songwriters (or at least post-madrigal or post-Baroque songwriters). Poulenc was also a master of meaningful songs, which is where I think he was at his greatest. He also was a master of musical irony and jokes. I don't think he's one of the greatest composers of all time, but I certainly like some of his music, when interpreted with a proper degree of whimsy or/and understated pathos. (You should come and hear me play his Sonata for Flute and Piano in February.) What analogies, if any, can we make with restaurant reviewing or food writing, generally? Well, there is much competent food, but how much of it is truly inspired? How do we separate the Brahmses from the Bruckners, the Shapeys from the Boulezes? And aren't those subjective categories?

Putting our apparent disagreement about "modern" composers aside, I think the best way to put what I'm trying to say is the following: If your answers to the questions "what is the best restaurant in New York?" and "what is your favorite restaurant in New York?" aren't different, you probably are being too purely subjective to be good critic. ← I disagree. You can easily believe that your favorite restaurant is in fact the best. Would it bother you if a critic's favorite restaurant in New York were, say, Alain Ducasse or Per Se, and that critic also believed that was the best restaurant in New York? And why are you presuming we disagree on modern composers? Does that mean you uncritically accept the current "received wisdom," rather than having your own opinion? Part of the problem here is that a good critic should mold rather than receive opinions, don't you think? [Edit: I don't know what the "received wisdom" on Ligeti is, but I consider him a very good composer. My disagreement is more with critical opinions on minimalism and conservative modernist composers like Copland, Menotti, Britten, et al., and also with the current animus against the Second Vienna School. To a lesser extent, I think that Bruckner, Shostakovich, and Sibelius, though all more or less worthwhile composers, are somewhat overrated, and most of the great French composers are grossly underrated in the U.S., while I consider Messiaen somewhat overrated. Most of these are frankly subjective opinions, having to do with my taste rather than things I can categorize, though there are some exceptions to this having to do with the degree of repetitiveness and melodic interest in some people's works.]

Robyn, I remember a particular day in 1969 when I was dragged to four different art galleries in SoHo. At least, I remember them to have been in SoHo, and so does my father. And I doubt that any one person possesses an exhaustive history of all art galleries that were ever in SoHo. But this is a bit of a tangent for a food site...

What should I order?

We'll have to talk about modern composers in person someday, because I completely and totally unapologetically reject much of the current "received wisdom" about them (artists, too). But I get your point.

I'm going to a party at THOR tomorrow. Sounds like I should get drinks only and eat somewhere else? What do you think?

Let's dial this back a little. Do I understand correctly that some of you want "objective" reviews? If so, hire a robot. Human beings have subjective opinions. When I read people posting in Chowhound that Skyway's food is "bland," and I disagree with them, based on my own palate and experience of eating Malaysian food in Malaysia, does that mean they are objectively wrong and I am objectively right? Nope. I may not even be more knowledgeable about Malaysian food than some of the objectors, and it's possible that because I'm a regular customer, the restaurant may make my food spicier. But none of these possibilities change my opinion, because I don't know whether the objectors' food is in fact bland or whether they're just looking for some macho "extreme chili" nonsense, for instance, but I do know what the food I am eating tastes like to me. As for "amenities": Since when did a two-star rating denote the presence of a particular set of amenities other than perhaps some decor and reasonably maintained restrooms, both of which Spicy & Tasty has? Do you seriously think that the "average person" has a preconceived notion that all two-star restaurants have a coat check or valet parking? Is there some reason you think that fictional "average person" believes that - did you ask Mr. or Mrs. Average that question? When we have these kinds of discussions, I sometimes wonder about the name of this website. Is this truly eGullet, or is it really eAmenities? Isn't it exactly proper for the quality of the food to be the most relevant criterion in any restaurant review that's designed to be useful to people who eat out mainly to experience great food? Or are you again seeking to serve Mr. Average, who allegedly is not a gourmet, and therefore someone I'd think we wouldn't be spending lots of time concerning ourselves with? I mean, let's face it, most people prefer McDonalds, and a much smaller segment of the population goes to restaurants to see and be seen and not for the food. I wouldn't think we'd want to associate ourselves any more (or less) with ignorant snobs than with poor chain patrons. More importantly, I doubt that New York Times reviews are directed at the small number of ignorant snobs, but rather, at that segment of their readership that cares enough about food to be interested in restaurants largely for that reason. We all know that the readership of the New York Times itself and their Dining & Wine section in particular does NOT constitute a cross-section of average people. They are wealthier on average, more highly educated, and more interested in events outside their own lives than most people. Can't we presume the Dining & Wine readers are more knowledgeable about and interested in food and restaurants than the "average person"? I think it's fair to add that if we were talking about a 4-star or even 3-star restaurant, I'd be taking a different tack. I _do_ think that that number of stars implies a greater degree of luxury. I don't agree that two stars do, and despite Bryan Miller's objections, there seems to be plenty of precedent for non-luxe restaurants to get two stars - which the "average" reader of the Times would probably take to mean what the Times says it means: Would any of you like to argue that Spicy & Tasty is not "very good," taking into consideration food, ambience, service, and price? Because if you agree, what are we arguing about?

There are good jazz clubs in the Village, and some in SoHo, as well. Robyn, SoHo has been touristy to some degree for 40 years! I was getting dragged to shows in SoHo art galleries by my father at least as early as 1969 (and probably earlier, but I can't remember). By the way, the new hot gallery location is way-west Chelsea.

As one of Grand Sichuan St. Marks' best customers, I couldn't disagree more!

I think that the cuisine of the elite also used rare spices and the like.

Thanks for the explanations, everyone. Yeah, I'm familiar with the round fried things.

I didn't think wine had enough alcohol for a flambee. Is there some special technique you use to get the flame, or only a match?

← I don't believe the quote would survive real scrutiny. No "third world" country's food has tiers of sophistication? None? But perhaps we wouldn't want this thread on Awash restaurant to be sidetracked by such a question.

How brightly-lit does it have to be, and how much expensive, classy decor does a place need before you refrain from calling it a "dive"? This is NOT Great NY Noodletown!

mascarpone and I ate there a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was very good, and I'll let him speak for himself when he has a chance.

Hey listen, you only live twice; get the corned beef sandwich, too. It's good, and I presume you'll have a refrigerator in your hotel room, if you want to save it and have it for breakfast instead of something else. Speaking of sandwiches for breakfast, if you're going to be staying downtown, would you want to go for a Vietnamese sandwich? Banh mi Saigon on Mott between Hester and Grand makes delicious Vietnamese sandwiches and you'll really save a lot of money on them. Something to consider, especially if you like it hot (if you don't, they'll make them mild for you, I guess by leaving out some or all of the jalapenos).

No, Percy, that was sufficient for me. Based on your experience, as well as some other people's, I definitely feel we did the right thing in cancelling our reservations during our trip to France in 2002. It wouldn't have been worth the money to us.

What are in hum chee bing? I have very slight knowledge of Mandarin and virtually no knowledge of other dialects of Chinese.

I understand the humoral coolness argument, but not the tannic acid argument, because in that case, it would be considered inadvisable to drink tea while eating crabs, right?

Hey, my family and I liked Shanghai Moon, too, when we were in China in the summer of 2004. There's a thread on Shanghai Moon in this forum.

If you get waiter service at Katz's, you don't get to pick your own pastrami. If you wait on line for the counterman, he gives you a sample to taste, and if it's not to your satisfaction, he'll pull over another slab of meat that probably will be to your satisfaction. Then, you can (and should) personally tip him a couple or three bucks per sandwich. I would rather wait on line and interact with the counterman than get waiter service. But that's also why I always advise people to go to Katz's anytime other than a weekend, because lines on weekends are usually brutal due to the arrival of hordes of group tours.

Yes. Banh Mi Saigon, on Mott between Hester and Grand, is much more flavorful. Thanks to mascarpone for originally introducing me to the place.

My comments here. Short version: The restaurant deserves it. And since Bruni emphasized the spiciness so much, maybe that'll be a safeguard against the arrival of numerous clueless (emphasis on the word "clueless") non-Chinese customers and inoculate the restaurant against the risk of it, God forbid, toning things down!

Spicy & Tasty gets two stars: Read the rest of the article: Where Playing with Fire is not Taboo Before many of you jump on Bruni for this review, saying he's crazy or misguided or foolish or something, let me be the first to say that he's right: Spicy & Tasty is a great restaurant that deserves two stars. The prices are cheap, but the food is consistently wonderful. I've eaten there over 40 times, I figure, and never once have I had a dish that wasn't delicious. Not one. I can't think of any other restaurant I've eaten at so many times that I can make that statement about. Furthermore, the ground floor of the restaurant actually has quite classy and presumably expensive decor. This is a wonderful restaurant serving Sichuan-style cuisine that I could send my homesick student from Chengdu to and have her come back to me thanking me and telling me that the food was just like the food from her home town, it's got a long, varied menu, and it has classy decor and good service (though, as Bruni accurately indicates, they speak a limited amount of English, and a Chinese-speaker among your group is definitely helpful, though not essential). What's not two-star about that? Purely the price? Too cheap for you? The lack of a wine list? Please!

Congratulations! Which part of the city do you live in?