slkinsey

FYI, from The Villager:

Suzanne, are you looking for the spelling of general names (e.g., "triple sec") or the spelling of brand names (e.g., "Cointreau")?

I think star ratings are useful as a shorthand way of describing a kind of restaurant in terms of the whole package. If one says, "I ate at Cafe Pierre the other day... it's a three star seafood place" people can immediately begin to form some idea about the style of cooking, the setting and the price.

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did. Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one. Well... his review implied that Babbo might have four star food. Although I have been playing Devil's Advocate a bit to stir up the pot, I don't really think the food at Babbo is entirely in keeping with the current model for four star food. Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger. And I'm sure there a quite a few more. This may be where the disconnect lies. You are describing places that serve good food, but what is "four star" about their food? Look... I love Landmarc, really love it. But by no stretch of the imagination are they serving four star food. It's ridiculous to even suggest that "mussels or steak with your choice of 5 different sauces" and "sweetbreads with crunchy green beans" are in the same category as what comes out of the kitchen at ADNY.

It's an interesting question. I can't think of any.

Exactly. The fourth star includes ambiance, among a whole host of other prerequisites. If four stars simply stood for "really good food" we'd have a lot more of them.

But it isn't only about the food. It never has been and never will be. I think there is a valid point to be made that there is a qualitative difference between having the same dish in different surroundings. Part of the four star experience certainly has to do not only with the attractiveness of the space, but the sound level, how comfortable and spacious the settings are, the style and pace of service, the quality of the flatware and glassware, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that one would have an entirely different experience eating a tuna and fiddlehead dish in a crowded, noisy, less than optimally comfortable restaurant in 1 hour as opposed to having the same dish as part of a 5 course meal in a spacious, quiet, comfortable restaurant where the table is yours for the night, real linen on the table and in your lap, eating off of fine china, using silver flatware and sipping a wine the expert sommelier helped you match to your food out of a Riedel glass. Not only would the meal itself be a radically different experience, but perceptual and social psychology strongly suggest that your subjective perception of the exact same dish would be rather different as well.

I wonder the extent to which this is true. This is to say, I wonder whether it is possible for a restaurant to be awarded four stars without buying significantly into the international neo-French restaurant model. One could argue that slow, meticulous, complex, super-duper-luxe cuisine is something particular to the international neo-French restaurant model (I say "neo-French" because I don't think this style refects the cooking of France the way Italian style reflects the cooking of Italy or Chinese style reflects the cooking of China, etc.). Indeed, it has been remarked by many that the Michelin-starred restaurants in Italy aren't serving particularly Italian food. I was right with you on the first sentence. Couldn't disagree more with the second. There are significant features of the high neo-French model that are specifically not the model to which people in other countries aspire. I keep returning to Italy because that's what I know best, but I know enough to know that it's no less true in other cultures. In Italy, for example, the aesthetic by and large leans away from meticulous complexity towards natural simplicity.

The ragu that sauces the mint love letters is made of merguez sausage, afaik. While it is likely true that the lamb in Jean-Georges' lamb dishes is likely better quality than the lamb in the sausage used by Babbo (not that "high quality lamb" is necessarily important or even desirable in the context of a sausage ragu), it does not necessarily follow that the lamb at Jean-Georges is higher quality than the lamb Babbo uses in its lamb chop dish. Here is a lamb item from Babbo: grilled lamb chops "scottadita" with Jerusalem artichokes, shiitakes and cumin yogurt. Here is a lamb item from Jean-Georges: pistachio crusted lamb chop with spring vegetable risotto and pickled spring garlic. Both go for around the same price. Neither dish indicates to me a higher level of technical difficulty compared to the other with respect to the lamb. Indeed, one could argue that some of the "simpler" cooking techniques are actually more difficult. Hitting a perfect medium-rare on the grill is a hell of a lot more difficult than putting something in cryo and plopping it into a steam oven to cook sous-vide for 24 hours. I'm not saying that I personally don't agree with you, nor am I saying that I don't agree with the utility of the star rating scale as we understand it. I am just pointing out the limitations of such a paradigm, and one notable limitation is that it is virtually impossible for any restaurant that does not substantially follow the neo-French international model to ever achieve a top rating. I am further pointing out that I don't think this makes neo-French food and restaurant style intrinsically better than Italian food and restaurant style -- only different. Indeed, I think Italian food and restaurant style which has been changed in such a way as to garner a top star rating under this model is made less good thereby. Similar things could be said of the cooking/restaurant style of other cultures.

I am in no way attempting to denigrate Babbo. It is a terrific restaurant with usually excellent food and sometimes excellent service. It does what Batali wants it to do. But it is objectively not as good as Jean George so it has fewer stars. I couldn't say. Babbo is certainly not using second-rate ingredients. I don't think you can differentiate these two restaurants on this basis. They offer a different style of service. Some people will prefer Jean-George's more formal style, some won't. I have heard some complaints about the service at Babbo, but have never experienced anything there myself other than first-rate service, so I can't comment any further than that. It is worthy of note that here on eG the number of people who have been to Babbo is probably 100 times larger than the number who have been to Jean-Georges, and on average less experienced at higher-end dining. Total judgment call. Plenty of people don't like the setting at Jean-Georges. I will say, however, that Jean-Georges has a more "four star appropriate" setting. Whether it is "nicer" is a matter of taste. Never at either place. Nevertheless, they are entirely subjective. It's quite clear. Objective evaluations are those that can be settled with a ruler or some other instrument of measurement. Evaluations that require one to make judgments based on nebulous criteria are intrinsically subjective. For example, at a certain level the difference in quality of ingredients may very well be objective (age of the fish, etc.) at another level (both places are getting day-caught fish) it is entirely subjective. I think one could further the argument that Babbo is actually a more "important" restaurant than Jean-Georges in terms of its influence, etc. I think it's important also to note that we agree on the most important points: 1. both restaurants are serving outstanding food at a very high level; and 2. the NYT star ratings are appropriate. We simply differ on what those star ratings indicate.

Viewing The Godfather is a totally experience than viewing Gigli, like night and day. "Better" isn't applicable here. How silly does that sound. It sounds like you're making a strawman argument using movies as an example. A better example, with respect to movies, might be: Viewing "Casablanca" is a totally different experience than viewing "Ladri di biciclette" which is a totally different experience than viewing "Kumonosu jô." "Better" isn't applicable here.

On what basis is Jean-George not a "better" restaurant than Babbo? I could understand you saying that you enjoy a Babbo type meal more than a Jean-George type meal but I don't see how you can say that Jean-George isn't a better restaurant than Babbo. On what basis would you say that Jean-Georges is better? Does the food taste better there? Is the decor and service intrinsically "better" or "better" according to a certain paradigm? What is the scale on which you are measuring them? Why and in what way does this scale apply to other people? I would say that Jean-George is "different" from Babbo, and is (deservedly) higher on a certain kind of quasi-arbitrary scale. But that does not equal "better" in an absolute sense. Part of what we have to understand is that this "better" idea many of us share is an entirely artificial distinction.

I tend to agree with this, but I am mostly going on what Bruni seemed to imply in his review -- which did give the impression that he thought it was 4 star food (if perhaps not the pinnacle of four star food) in a three star environment. Part of what has historically made food like Batali's seem more "three star" than "four star" has been the less composed presentation, etc. The kinds of refinements you are talking about strike me as things which are fundamentally part of the neo-French restaurant tradition. You won't, for example, find an Italian restaurant making sure that every matchstick of leek is exactly .05 mm wide and 2.3 cm long, nor will you find the dish plated in a carefully composed, quasi-architectural way. That's not the Italian aesthetic. I have heard Batali remark upon occasion things like: "you want the food to appear natural, as though it slid out of the pan onto your plate in a particularly felicitous way" and "the Italian aesthetic would enjoy the capriciousness of having the leek matchsticks in slightly different shapes and sizes." This doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of effort, discipline and refinement to me, but rather an aesthetic that is fundamentally at odds with the more tightly controlled neo-French model. If stars are going to be awarded according to the strict neo-French model, then it is impossible for a restaurant operating under the Italian aesthetic to achieve four stars. When Bruni said this... ...it led me to infer that he was indicating he might depart from the strict neo-French model as a basis for awarding stars. A reasonable conclusion from the text above is also that he found the food worthy of four stars.

One thing I think it's important to understand -- and the Times is somewhat guilty of perpetuating the wrong idea -- is that a rating is not fundamentally a measure of how "good" a restaurant is. Rather, it is an indication of the style the restaurant is aiming for and the extent to which it meets those goals. Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book. But the difference in the style and goals of the two restaurants is nicely indicated by the difference in ratings. The fact is that Babbo might not be a "better" restaurant if Batali made the changes necessary for a four star rating (indeed, it might be worse in some respects) -- but it would be a different restaurant. Do I think this information is still relevant today? Sure. The Times has also changed some of its ideas about what constitutes how many stars as restaurant culture has changed.

I think the problem is not so much that the pasta sticks together while it is cooking (this problem is most effectively solved by using a larger volume of water). Rather, it seems that the uncooked pasta sticks to itself and then does not un-stick once it is dropped in the water. For this, the only truly effective solution I have found is to use a drier dough -- a "pasta drying rack" can help as well, simply because the strande of pasta are not in contact with one another when they are hanging on the rack. Also, responding to the original post: I would recommend using zero percent semolina. I assume you're using a special pasta machine to knead and sheet the dough? You should be able to make a much dryer dough if you're using a machine, and sticking really shouldn't be an issue. Also, how are you cutting the sheets of dough and how are you preparing the cut dough for transportation to the customer's home? A sheet of dough ready to be cut shouldn't be sticking to itself.

Updated List: L&B Spumoni Gardens Saturday, June 12th @ 2:00PM Attendees kurl Jason Perlow & Rachel Perlow slkinsey & bergerka Blondie SarahD Pan

Drier pasta. That is the solution. Drier pasta and a dusting of rice flour.

D'oh! Hmmm... None of your suit jackets would look reasonable with slacks? This is usually, but not always, the case.

I'd suggest splitting the difference. I am pretty sure you won't stand out at work if you wear dress slacks, a (non-white) shirt that will look good both with and without a tie, and a jacket. Bring a tie with you in your bag. You can always take the jacket off at work, and you can put on the tie at the last minute if you decide to go with neck ornamentation for Bouley. This gives you the ability go be comfortable at work, and also to blend in to pretty much any style of dress at Bouley (dress slacks, shirt/tie and jacket, if appropriately high quality, are almost as dressy as a full suit -- and yet the whole ensemble is made appreciably more casual by taking off the tie and unbuttoning the collar).

To which several of us have given you the very clear answer: "No, because Bruni quite lucidly explained that the three-star rating was not merely because of the type of music played, but for numerous factors, of which the loud music was emblematic." If all (or nearly all) of those factors changed, then yes, Babbo might be a four-star restaurant. It would also not be the same place. Remember, it is not a bad thing to be rated three stars. Three stars, in the Times system, means "excellent." In this city of thousands of restaurant, there are only about 40 of these. It is rarefied territory. This comment is so off the wall, I'm not sure where to begin. The music was emblematic of an ambiance problem that caused Babbo to fall into the three-star category. If you accept that, then here is a simple point ot digest: IF BRUNI HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE AMBIANCE - HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT FOUR STARS BASED ON THE FOOD. Not necessarily. There is a difference between "had a problem with the ambiance" and "didn't feel that the ambiance was appropriate to a four-star restaurant." As oakapple suggests, Bruni found that there were several things that kept Babbo from earning four stars. These things seem to be largely not food-related, and I agree that a possible interpretation of Bruni's article is that Babbo is serving four star-worthy food. However, it is quite well established that there are factors other than simply the food itself that go into the rating. These factors all seemed to point in the direction of three stars rather than four and tipped the balance in that direction. So, yes, if the ambiance had been more appropriate for a four star restaurant, it is quite possible that Bruni would have awarded four stars. So what? Whether or not Bruni liked the ambiance (which I assume is what you are getting at with "had a problem with") is immaterial. He might actually prefer the ambiance at Babbo over the ambiance at Daniel. However, in making his evaluation, he judged that the ambiance at Babbo was a distinctly "three star or lower" ambiance. To suggest that such evaluations are somehow inappropriate in making a rating is to turn the entire system on its head -- and this is not the thread for such a discussion.

For those who may be curious, the Manhattan User's Guide said: I agree with you, buy the way, in disagreeing with the MUG. I thought it was very well written.

Babbo didn't lose a star. It was always three stars. I have commented elsewhere on the star system as it relates to the quality of the food: My chart doesn't include four stars, but you can imagine it over there on the right. What I gathered from Bruni's review is that Babbo is producing food that falls in the overlap area between three and four stars -- arguably four-star calibre food -- but that the other related elements such as the noise level, the pace and tenor of service and the closeness of the tables combined to make a three-star rating more appropriate.

A basil-infused syrup would work really well in a julep-type drink.

I don't know that it's all that much out of proportion. He devoted a lot of column space to things that didn't have much to do with the food at Babbo. Using the handy word count feature on MSWord, I see that there are 1071 words in the article. Of those, 503 words were in paragraphs discussing non-food related issues. Only 568 were in paragraphs substantially discussing the food at Babbo (including 54 for wine and 51 for dessert). Does roughly 10% of the food-related review devoted to both wine and dessert (for a total of 20%) strike you as too little? What percentage do you think is appropriate? Personally, I'd be loathe to give up too many of the 463 remaining words devoted to food.

Stepping into my moderator shoes for a moment, I'd like to point out that this thread should be for discussing Bruni, what general things he might be saying in his review, what possibilities his review seems to imply for the future, etc. There is a thread in the NY forum for discussions relating specifically to Babbo, including what this review has to say that specifically relates to the restaurant.