Bux

I'm not too familiar with prices outside of Manhattan, but every time I leave NY, everything seems to be bargain priced. Rocco's is in a pretty hip neighborhood, restaurant-wise. Lots of trendy restaurants and a bunch of really good upscale ones as well. There are plenty of bars where cocktails run the price of a good appetizer if not main course and no one is criticizing the over priced food either. DiSpirito's own Union Pacific is around the corner. A three course meal there, runs $68 without wine or coffee and some dishes carry a supplementary charge. You can download the menus in a pdf file at the UP site. You'll not only learn that there's a five course menu for $85, but that their staff is "dressed exclusively by Express and Express for men."

Not a great place to induce vertigo. Chica, con perro n'est-ce pas?

My personal decision would be to choose Gagnaire, and it was. Alas, I cannot report first hand on Savoy. It's a personal decision anyway and none of ours might match yours. Now tell us where you are dining in the southwest of France and north of Spain. Spain has become a very exciting and interesting country in which to eat.

Deep down inside, I'm as hypocritical as the next guy. When I post here, it's rarely to convince anyone that my opinions are right. I have facts that I am eager to share and there are things I come to learn, but when it comes to opinions, I am unconvinced and hope to remain that way as long as I can. Of course I have to make up my mind before the election and I have to place my order before I can have dinner, but for the most part I post to make others think and most appreciate it when others can make me think about what positions I currently hold. We'll bog down in definitions here. My point was to propose that creative people who have no following are less a part of an avant garde, than they are outsiders, but I'm just defining terms, not making a real point. To be creative and not have a following takes more guts, or maybe just more determination. It's a difficult issue. People draw, paint, sculpt, write and even cook creatively to communicate. It's unrewarding sometimes not to be understood, even if you do not have followers recreating in your footsteps. Sometimes the goal is not to have imitators, but to inspire a new generation to think for themselves and be free of the stranglehold of tradtion. (The stranglehold of tradition is not the same as tradition.) I don't know Bresson's work very well, but he's certainly affected how many people see cinema and make films, even if they don't try to imitate him. There is an element of seriousness in my MacDonald's joke, and it ties in with my sense that often the greatest experts in a field miss the next wave of creativity precisely because they have too much knowledge of the past and what is good when judged by old standards. I've learned to eat and enjoy some of the foods I've sneered at in the past. As a francophilic snob, I watched French dining habits incorporate not just American habits, but those of California. It was the French who pulled the rug out from under my snobbism. Intellectually, I must remain open to the possibility that I am missing something at Mickey D's while I must sneer at their food to fully enjoy my food.

I've been meaning to recommend their pig's feet. I suspect a lot of New Yorkers may be put off seeing this on the menu and may not be aware that the meat is scraped off the bones and assempled in patties which are fried with a crisp exterior and a very moist succulent interior. We've always loved this dish, but the last time we had it, they changed it a bit. The patties are now larger and there's more of a contrast between the crust and the interior -- and we found it a better dish for that.

You should know better than to read my posts.

Vmilor, I could as easily support your contention as argue against it. I think we run into problems of both semantics and subjectivity here. It probably takes talent and not guts to distinguish oneself however one manages to impress a qualified audience. It is no easier to be creative than it is to be traditional, or more truthfully, it depends on the milieu in which one is working. It also depends on the definitions one uses for creativity and how one measures success. To actually be avant garde requires not that you be creative, but that others follow in your path. Yes, sometimes the first lemming over the cliff is part of the avant garde, but generally, trends become movements or they die. In any event it's difficult to attract followers and easy to do what's been done before (the nature of being traditional) but difficult to distinguish yourself doing what's been done before. Pacaud, for instance, doesn't really do what others have done -- or at least it appears that he accomplishes what others have tried to do. What is worth discussing, is the place for creativity in food. As for experts in any art form, their expertise is often challenged by creative works and the experts are often among those who sneer at creativity. There's no doubt that creativity was the catchword of the arts in the twentieth century beginning with the impressionists in the art of painting. They were refused recognition by the establishment critics and their follows were called by such names as "beasts." That a beastly (fauvist) painter's hues would one day set the palette for fashionable colors is the nature of creativity. It redefines the standards. Both Adria and Pacaud redefine our standards, but they do it in different ways. Those who have the greatest ability to appreciate the greatest number of standards have the chance to appreciate the most. I know I could get more out of life if I could only learn to appreciate MacDonald's.

Presumably training for the soon to be out of work actor's next jobs as computer technicians. All, or most, kidding aside, I don't think people are saying that the waiters were inept people, but that the over all organization was inept and because of the lack of preparation, the service was inept.

Ah, but, Bux, you're not paying attention! That wasn't just any waiter. That was GIDEON!!. He was the actor/waiter who was first in line in the first episode with the sign that said "I'm not a bum. I'm first in line". He has his own website now. This is a sad show. Minor correction, sorry Bux, but the waiter who went to get the wine was actually Pete, not Gideon. I know this because I was the guy who stepped in with the red wine to save his ass. I was also the guy who had to deal with the seething management staffs of both Kitchen 22 and Bolo(the two places Pete and the CAMERAS) went in search of vino. They were pissed. Truthfully I was rather surprised that bit made the show due to the illegal nature of the goings-on, but I'm guessing Burnett won't lose sleep if Rocco's gets slapped with a suit. As for who's left in the FOH. A few. Lots of housecleaning. Sorry, I didn't catch Pete's name, but I noted in my follow up post to Mark's post that it wasn't Gideon and he agreed. The correction had already been made online. But tell us how the house managed to run out of red wine and how you managed to step in with the red wine, if the restaurant ran out. So much of this sounds like planned mayhem for the cameras.

NY diners have an over reaching regard for their own palates some times. Perhaps often, from the tales I've heard from the kitchen and the front of the house. Diners in NY are often just plain arrogant and unknowledgeable. All too often they see their relationship with a restaurant as a contentious one from the onset. For what it's worth, I suspect the situation is much worse in L.A.

He didn't open a restaurant. He stared on a "reality TV" show. The restaurant was a by product of the show. The dog wagged the tail. The restaurant was going to open reguardless of the show. The insane timeline was a by-product of the show. Do you think they went to Jeffey and said we would like to do a show can you give us 4 million, well mabye but doubtful. Perhaps they were going to open a restaurant anyway, but the restaurant that opened was a product of the TV show. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it was a hybrid. Call it a bastard or Frankenstein if you will, but I still feel the tail wagged the dog. Then again, I am not the target audience of either the show or perhaps the restaurant. I'm not any more or less likely to drink a Coors beer or drive a Mitsubishi because of the show and the odds were extrememly low before. My opinion of American Express is not likely to change either. However, without the show, I would have been more likely to try any restaurant Rocco opened. I doubt the people who have invested in this care much one way or the other.

Le Cinq? I've seen references to it on eGullet. I suspect you have as well and are looking for more recent opinions. Sorry, I haven't been there. We did eat at Maxence last fall and quite frankly we were a bit disappointed. This is not to say we had a bad meal, but we didn't have a meal that stood out either. Perhaps l'Astrance has ruined any chance for a one star to make an impression on us, or maybe it was the impression the chef's hare rillettes with chocolate made on me the year before, at the Chocolate Show. Here's what I posted last November.

I'm a fan of Eleven Madison Park and I've also been known to say that it's the best looking dining room in NY, although I don't like to speak of any one place in absolute terms. Perfect is an interesting word as it's clearly an absolute term. Eleven Madison Park is hardly the best, finest, greatest, etc. restaurant in NY, but it is "perfect," perhaps in the way a ruby can be a perfect ruby, but still not be a diamond. It is a gem anyway. The gougeres are a wonderful start and apparently not a vip treat but given to all diners. It's worth ordering a bottle of wine just to complement them. I suggest an Alsatian riesling and let the waiter or sommelier know you are ordering the wine for the gougeres. If you're lucky and it's a slow night, maybe you can coax a second plate of gougeres out of the kitchen.

Bux, We may disagree, but I respect those who can do so using reason and respect for the other side. You wanna run for mayor next time around? Just because I have sympathy for someone doesn't mean I'd act on it. Just because there might be a better way, doesn't mean I'll spend my time and energy looking for it. Fairness is far easier in the abstract. The first thing I'd do as mayor is close all the places that serve lousy food. Whaddya mean I can't do that? I'm not running.

He didn't open a restaurant. He stared on a "reality TV" show. The restaurant was a by product of the show. The dog wagged the tail.

Yeah, but you were correct. I might have said those words had my focus not been elsewhere.

Where the hell are the shots of Daniel Boulud who was there with a crew of his and the Ripert/Bourdain table? I'd hope to see some of this in a future show, but I've already figured out I'm not the target audience. I also assume these guys are going to offer a guarded professional opinion. Well maybe Bourdain who's posted here can be depended on to offer a candid opinion. He get's paid to bite the hand that feeds him.

Did I ever imply it was an educational experience? I don't think so, but you're correct. It's easier to focus on the train wreck aspect, but for a while I though the second show was going to offer the rush of being in a kitchen -- and it did at times, but people like myself are clearly distracted. Zilla369 had a good perspective.

Ah, but, Bux, you're not paying attention! That wasn't just any waiter. That was GIDEON!!. He was the actor/waiter who was first in line in the first episode with the sign that said "I'm not a bum. I'm first in line". He has his own website now. This is a sad show. Maybe I wasn't. I thought it was the guy in the sloppily unbuttoned green shirt that went out for wine. Gideon was reduced to working in the basement cleaning latrines and stuff that night, wasn't he? They were a pair of hams, and as I recall had to told to break up their duo act for the cameras.

His "boss," Rocco, told him what to do in the first show. You go out and get the cocktail from the restaurnat across the street -- in direct violation of the state liquor laws -- and then demonstarted what to do by getting beer, .. um I mean Coors, for the group on (scripted) request.

Well said. I think "train wreck" is the phrase we need to keep in mind. It's not something I want to happen nor wish to see, but tell me there's a train wreck to the side of the road and I will slow down and look. I suspect that for all the legitimate criticism, especially from gastronomes, this is successfully reaching his intended audience of prospective diners.

Judging from the map in the red Michelin guide, Chez FonFon is almost across the road from the one starred l'Epuisette and perhaps, right on the little port of Vallon des Auffres. Michelin also calls it a testament to Marius. How that compares to the welcome in the style of Pagnol you are supposed to get at Michel-Brasserie des Catalans is anyone's guess. but I deem it to be a favorable comment. We haven't yet perfected time travel, -- indeed, if you look at theme parks as an example, it would seem we don't really want the past as it really was -- but there are those places that enable us to get an honest glimpse of the past. If Peter's lucky, this may be one. Understand that Marseille isn't what it used to be and that bouillabaise isn't what it used to be and he may find a bit of magic. Most of us look too hard for the magic and only discover that things are not what they used to be. The sad fact is that if Peter finds the magic and tells us about it, we will all come expecting magic and learn only that things are not what they used to be. Peter, I hope I didn't spoil this one for you with Michelin's description.

No one puts out their best work for someone they think doesn't appreciate what they are doing. The reverse, of course, is also true. People will work harder to please you if they think you appreciate it. It's almost a given that in many serious restaurants in both France and certainly NY that you will get the best service and food if you can communicate your appreciation of food to the staff. In a truly serious fine restaurant that difference is one of shading that might not even be noticed by the average diner. What happens to the restaurant that starts off with the intent of being a fine restaurant and attracts a crowd that doesn't appreciate the food, is that over time the standards slip. They find they can increase profits by serving day old frozen fish and no one notices. When the clientele doesn't care, it reduces the incentive for the staff to care. Eventually that attitude prevails in the dining room as well as in the kitchen. Eventually there's no one left in the restaurant who cares about anything but the short term income. For the most obvious reasons, it happens most often where there's a non-repeating clientele such as in tourists areas, or where the crowd comes for other reasons -- comfort and luxurious accommodations, not infrequently. In the Loire last year, I was rather astounded to read the brochure for Domain des Haut Loire, a rather plush country inn, after dining at their restaurant. The glossy colorful brochure hardly mentioned the food, which was exceptionally good -- two well deserved stars. I can only assume they have a word of mouth attracting gastronomes to the tables, but that they need to advertise the other charms. I still found it remarkable that the level of food was so high. In spite of fact that the cuisine was under played in the brochure, (and to be honest, it was mentioned) everything about the place said they cared about food. The guy who took my bags from the car (and it's the kind of place where everyone seems to work sixteen hours a day) asked where we had stayed the night before and when I told him, his eyes lit up as he remarked that we must have eaten well there. The captain also sparkled when we engaged him in conversation about the food. I'd be curious to know how the rest of the guests related to the cuisine, but everything about the place said it was a connoisseur's destination. I guess my point here is that sometimes people excel in what they do for reasons of pride and self respect.

What was the bit with going across the street and buying red wine? Was the diner an Amex executive? I don't know where the nearest wine shop is, but in NYS, bars and restaurants are not licensed to see liquor for off premises consumption. Heads would have rolled if the cameras caught anyone selling wine for take out. The poor waiter was clueless -- except for the one clue Rocco gave him about pleasing the customer when Rocco sent someone out for beer, excuse me Coors, during rehearsal. And the take my credit card bit? Is that the way Amex encourages members to use thier cards?

I think even gentle well thought out laws can seem to run roughshod over preceived rights, or real interests and surely we have a right to our interests. The smoking ban makes more of NY emminently enjoyable to be and it's hard to disguise my pleasure in that. That doesn't mean I am blind to the fact that other people's joy is diminished. The shoe is on the other food in that regard. There is nothing inherently positive or progressive about that sort of trade off. They sympathy I have for those who've lost a pleasure is perhaps due to the revolutionary, rather than evolutionary nature of the change. One day you could do something you enjoyed and today you can't. Universal sufferage is similarly revolutionary in a certain way, but while a whole new group gets to vote, no one is taking away the votes of the existing voters. I suppose my contribution here is only to agree that perhaps the change might have been made in a less drastic manner and still protected the rights of employees. I have a general problem with "separate and equal," as the separate parts are never equal, but there are exceptions that could have been allowed to continue for some period. Of course the more complex the law becomes, the harder it may be to enforce it. In the end, the success of this law will depend on its social acceptance, just like prohibition.