docsconz

I think that the days of technique for its own sake are behind us, however, that does not mean that technique will suddenly become unimportant or that the novel techniques developed over the last twenty years or so will disappear. They will stay and new ones will continue to be developed and highlighted, but there will be a greater emphasis on the the overall sensory pleasures of the final product. The spherical olive developed at elBulli and used so well by Andres will continue to be popular because it is soooo good. Frank Bruni, in his recent article on Bazaar by Jose Andres in the NYT raved about them. I read somewhere, but can't recall who wondered why Andres served real olives alongside the spherical ones when the spherical ones were so much better! Sous vide or other low temperature cooking methods aren't going anywhere anytime soon. They've become the dominant form of cooking proteins and even many vegetables in many top restaurants. Even the much decried foams seem to have established themselves as a useful adjunct. New techniques will still be developed and featured, though perhaps not to the gimmicky extent that many have been in the recent past, where some chefs felt that they had to show that they were au courant. The techniques will likely play more supporting roles, but there will always be a premium for succesful and real creativity.

How does Robuchon fit this bill, especially in Las Vegas? ← You're absolutely right. It doesn't. Bolded Red for emphasis. ← I did see that U.E., but I wanted to be specific and am trying to find rhyme or reason for this list. If terroir or locavorism were the unifying factor then The French Laundry might have replaced Robuchon, since much of their produce is quite local indeed. I'm not saying that Robuchon isn't a great restaurant or doesn't belong on a list like this, just that that restaurant sa wonderful as it is specifically does not fit that particular profile.

I have been using this technique quite a bit lately with excellent results. I'm a convert. In addition, I don't mind saving the energy or the water, even if it is just a little bit each time after all, every little bit helps. Adding the pasta water from this technique to the sauce is a plus too. I think this water adds more to the sauce, then that of more conventionally cooked pasta.

Right, right. Fraternal, not identical. Still joined at the hip. And one sibling still has more expensive taste. ← I'll buy that!

How does Robuchon fit this bill, especially in Las Vegas?

Right, but how does one write about Chez Panisse in this manner without sounding redundant? I suspect these are JUST twelve restaurants that matter, NOT the ONLY twelve, or even the TOP twelve, or the BEST twelve, or... you get my point. ← I agree with you on the "just" part, but can't help wondering "why" write the list article without a defined point of view? I really can't come up with a common denominator to make this list appropriate in my mind. I'm probably in higher agreement with the signature dishes than restaurants that matter. ← Common denominators: 1. In composite, this list of restaurants covers the four corners of this great country. 2. In composite, this list of restaurants covers a relatively diverse set of cuisines. Name me the most "important" Asian restaurants in the U.S. I bet The Slanted Door might just be at the top of most people's list. Likewise, Topolobompo for Latin - especially Mexican - cuisine. 3. What I didn't disclose in my initial post (and what I didn't discover until reading some of the restaurant profiles) is that there is an emphasis on terroir and locavorism. That automatically narrows the field. Most of these twelve restaurants fit the bill. There may be other thematic under currents here, but I'll have to think about it a little before I venture any other observations. ← Though, I would argue that Frontera Grill is more important than Topolobompo. But, six and one half dozen - they're basically twins conjoined at the hip. One just happens to have more expensive taste. ← I disagree. Frontera is more an outpost of down home pan-Mexican cooking, while Topo is more a bastion of upscale gourmet Mexican. I think both are wonderful and clearly related, though not the same.

Have you been to the rest, doc? I've only been to four out of the ten. I can't say I was immensely impressed by more than just one of them, though I can see how three of them might be considered "restaurants that matter." ← I've been to 7 of the 12 and was least impressed with The Slanted Door. Le Cheval across the Bay in Oakland is a better Vietnamese restaurant, though TSD gets all the hype. Commander's has had its ups and downs for quality and relevance, but I can accept that it "matters" even if it wouldn't be on a list that I would make.

I'm not familiar with 2,8,9 or 10 so can't speak to those, but Slanted Door? Really?

As Holly noted, it is possible to be both an enthusiast and a critic. I am an enthusiast too. I only visit restaurants I expect to like, and I only order dishes I expect to like. If I were a pro critic, I would be obligated to visit a much wider range of restaurants, and to order a much wider range of food. But even as an enthusiast, if it should happen that I am disappointed, I say so. I would prefer that this never happens, since I am spending my own money, but the reality is that restaurants screw up sometimes.Josh Ozersky clearly is a critic, in the sense that he publishes material designated as "reviews." What's more, the act of deciding which places to write about is "criticism," even if he does not tell us how he arrived at the decision. I doubt that he is looking to me for career advice, but I think his reputation would be enhanced if he wrote negative reviews too. It would prove that, despite all the free food and publicist-massaged access he gets, he really can call a spade a spade. He claims he can, but he provides no evidence of it. ← Marc, I agree with most of what you wrote. The problem with negativity in this sense is that the equation changes. Instead of wondering about objectivity and bias and whether a good review is positive payback, the obvious corollary is wondering if a negative review is payback of a different sort. This scenario has been intimated at others in the past. For my part, unless a mediocre experience has occurred in an otherwise universally praised restaurant like the Momofukus, or one with unusually high expectations, I generally don't bother. Particularly awful experiences are worth reporting about in their own right. My preference is to write about what gets me excited or interested or has some other relevance. I'm not sure that I see it too differently with Ozersky.

Josh considers himself an "enthusiaast" rather than a critic, a designation I apply to myself as well. The difference is that an enthusiast tends to write about what he likes, while a critic looks to pick things apart. I write about my meals, but unless something strikes me as really off or really annoys me, I tend not to write about lesser experiences. That doesn't interest me to do that, though I'm glad that there are critics who do.

Call it what you will, but a sense of humor (and yes, whimsy) is critical for technoemotional cuisine, at least for those most successful with it. Without one, it becomes too self-important and too pretentious.

Do you think that he is wrong? His opinion is certainly generally accepted thinking amongst the medical community.

I would certainly write them. They should be able to corroborate your experience at least as far as the timing is concerned. It would be one thing if you told them that you were heading to the theater or had to be out by a certain time. I agree that is out of character.

The Atlantic Magazine has launched a new online Food "Channel" edited by Corby Kummer. Chef Grant Achatz is and will continue to be a featured contributor. His first installment, including a photo from yours truly, is entitled Madrid Fusion, G8 Summit for Chefs. Chef Achatz will be contributing "2-3 posts per week" starting on his opinion on the state of modern gastronomy,then transitioning to his recent experiences in Japan before delving into a number of new ideas for modern cooking that they have at Alinea.

I would add, that in this instance, the drug companies are probably not the ones to blame, though they may be guilty of plenty of other things.

I would bet that if everyone was actually tested, say in the NYC metropolitan area, the incidence of MRSA would be quite high, perhaps even alarmingly so. All MRSA signifies is that a particular organism is resistant (i.e. not killed by) most forms of penicillin, a traditional (since the 1940's) first line antibiotic against staph aureus infections. It so happens that staph aureus is a particularly common bug. We are all pretty much carriers of it. Some forms, however, in some people, become pathogenic. If that bug happens to be MRSA, it is more difficult to treat. The problem is that the prolific use of antibiotics has led to resistance, in pathologic organisms and non-pathologic. The fact that a particular staph bacterium is MRSA doesn't make it inherently bad. What is bad is that the genes for resistance are spreading to areas that have traditionally not been an issue and more pathogenic bugs are carrying it. As for who is to blame, everybody. Antibiotics became ubiquitous and were felt to be a miracle cure (which they were and still are). A desire for a quick, inexpensive fix has led to this whether it was the person with a cold demanding antibiotics from their doctor, the doctor caving in and prescribing them unnecessarily, the demand for cheap food and factory farming which led to overcrowded conditions and tools to combat the inevitable infections, etc.

It's called taking care of one's customers. Good businesses of any stripe do that. For the restaurant business, it doesn't matter whether one is a blogger, board poster or simply a good customer, the better places take care of their better customers. That was one of the main messages in Fat Guy's first book. In this way, a report may or may not necessarily reflect what a first time customer may experience, but what a particular restaurant is capable of. Mileage may vary. I posit that the same is generally true for Frank Bruni's experiences as well.

Although the underlying sentiment is laudable, this sounds like more bureaucratic BS to me with the result being reduced access to quality food from small producers. It will be next to impossible to have rules that make sense, are enforceable and make a real difference when it comes to food safety. An important question will be what defines "safe." At the moment raw milk cheeses and uninspected jamonés Ibericos are considered patently unsafe. I imagine that this list will only expand whether the actual foods are unsafe or not.

Actually, you can some of his work at the shop Sugar & Ice at the Wynn.

This looks great! I wish that I could be there, but alas not.

I could see how a specific sauce can really make this dish, as I found a self-sauced one with poularde de Bresse to be a nice chicken soup.

I see two new southern BBQ'ers will be in the mix. Are there any missing from last year besides the California rib people who were next to Mike Mills? Is this a final list?

Is it approaching that time of year again, already? Good news!

Which Blue Hill are you referring to? I assume Stone Barns, in which case I think that would be a great plan. I may be mistaken, but I think Saturday lunch at Jean-Georges is actually at Nougatine and different from the weekday lunch. It has been a while since I did a Saturday lunch there.

If Josh or anyone who publishes as much as he does consistently writes glowing reports that defy others experiences then those people are not going to trust those reports and he or she will lose credibility. I think the role of an enthusiast is different than that of a critic, however, an enthusiast must maintain credibility. I haven't found that to be a problem with Josh or with Perry St., though it has been some time since I have been there.