Restaurant Troisgros, Roanne

[lizziee]

In the Great Chefs of France, there is a long chapter on Les Freres Troisgros which I think is important to summarize. It gives an historical perspective to the restaurant as well as Jean-Baptiste's vision. Les Freres Troisgros was never meant to be a temple of gastronomy; "it is the epitome of a French restaurant, a meeting place, a home-from-home, a neighbourhood establishment, stamped with the personality of the patron, serving excellent food." Of course, the canny Jean-Baptiste, for all his protestations that he wanted just a neighborhood restaurant, sent his sons to Lucas Carton and La Pyramide to train and learn. "It took the brothers ten years to achieve their second star and three more to get their third, and this rather slow progression may, considering their talents, have been due to the rather casual atmosphere of the place. One certainly has no impression here of reverence, in fact planned irreverence might describe it better.... It hardly occurred to them that they would ever get three stars and, asked how they achieved it, Pierre says, laughing, 'It has something to do with the cooking, I believe.' Jean, on the other hand, says more seriously, 'It is the family atmosphere. It is the Roannais, the people of the town, who make it. We created an ambiance, children are welcome here."

Robert,

I wonder if you found this "planned irreverence" to be true the first time you were there and if it is true now? From our one meal in 2001, I did not find Troisgros to be a temple, but I also never considered it casual or particularly "neighborly."

There is also a telling remark made by the brothers. "Nowadays, they say, there is too much news and publicity. They produce a new dish, their mosaique de legumes truffee for instance, and six months later it is on every menu in France. There is no difference between Paris and the provinces. Their salmon with sorrel, created for Giscard d'Estaing's lunch, now appears on menus in London, New York and Tokyo." (As a footnote, the salmon with sorrel was based on an improvisation by Pierre Troisgros' mother-in-law when she had a lot of left-over sorrel after she had made sorrel soup.) "Were it not for the need for tourists, much of this would be anathema to them, for their hearts are really in that first image of a neighbourhood restaurant."

Again, I wonder if Michel Troisgros is caught up in the globalization of cuisine to the detriment of Troisgros' original concept. "Light and digestible, pure and clean is how the brothers describe their food." Steve, Robert, Bux, Cabrales - how would you characterize the cuisine of today? Is it still pure and clean.?

Another telling comment - "To do a good dish for a month is easy. To do it for twenty years, that is hard, say the Troisgros, suggesting that absolute consistency is the hardest learned part of the chef's art." Does this suggests that ordering Troisgros classics is more in keeping with the Troisgros philosophy?

Finally, Anthony Blake and Quentin Crewe characterize the cuisine of Troisgros circa 1958 as "earthy simplicity." "No all-purpose bases for sauces and no starch for liaisons. No complicated presentations, but everything served on a large plate, and certainly nothing cooked or finished in the dining room. In essence it is family cooking which the Troisgros most admire.... Much of the menu is inspired by peasant cooking." with the major emphasis being on the quality of the produce. Since, I wasn't lucky enough to have eaten at Troisgros in the 80's, does this same emphasis and approach still exist? Or has the need for tourists, the publicity and introduction of "foreign" ingredients and techniques changed Troisgros from this original concept?

[Bux]

Again, I wonder if Michel Troisgros is caught up in the globalization of cuisine to the detriment of Troisgros' original concept. "Light and digestible, pure and clean is how the brothers describe their food." Steve, Robert, Bux, Cabrales - how would you characterize the cuisine of today? Is it still pure and clean.?

Lizzie, are you asking about the Troisgros cuisine or international cuisine? I've had but one meal in Roanne and that was in the mid eighties. I don't kow what it's like now except for what I read. When Claude Troisgros had a restaurant in NYC, I had a few meals there and loved them. When Pierre came to hep celebrate the first anniversary of Claude's restaurant, we had an overpriced meal that was less successful than the regular offerings. It left me with little interest in special gourmet attracting meals for a long time.

Is cuisine pure and clean elsewhere to day? Yes and no. I can't put a face on it. There's nothing pure or clean about most fusion food I've tried. The cuisine at Blue Hill in New York, is light and digestible, pure and clean. That in itself doesn't make it any better than the tripe I also love. Come to think of it, we got pork bellies once at Blue Hill, although they were pretty light and digestible--for pork bellies.

[Bux]

the cost of creating a "wow" that is perfect on every level must be capital, and labor intensive to the point of making it financially intolerable to all but those who have the secret.

In the media board I commented on the Robuchon artcle about how he had said we will see the end of haute cuisine as we know it. To run the sort of restaurant he ran was too prohibitive financially to be an interesting business model. I also noted that Ferran Adria planned to open what's described as a fast food restaurant in the corner of an NH Hotel in Madrid.

Great food doesn't have to be synonymous with great dining, but great dining will be missed if it disappears--or if I can't afford it anymore.

[robert brown]

Bux, Steve, Liz, it may be 18:10 or 15:10 where you are, but here it is 00:10 Friday. I really adore your comments and plan to join in again in the morning. Night-night,

Robert

[lizziee]

"Lizzie, are you asking about the Troisgros cuisine or international cuisine?"

Bux,

I am only referring to the cuisine at Troisgros as it exists today in contrast to what it once was. I went on at length about the historical background of Troisgros because I wondered what the original "spirit" of Troisgros was and if, in fact, it does or could exist today.

The quotes from e-gullet members that I found particularly important were:

"Our meals in the 1970s and early 1980s were more focused and disciplined because they were all about France. Now the baton has been passed to a chef-restaurateur whose palate and tastes reflect the internationalization of food."(Robert Brown) That was the reason I referenced Troisgros' comments about the lack of difference between Paris and the provinces, the effect of publicity and the duplication of Troisgros dishes in the major capitals of the world.

"What Michel Troisgros is not famous for is for creating an entire menu on his own that is at the level of what you call "the greatest of the day." In fact none of the younger chefs in France seem to be in that league if you ask me." (Steve P)

"What comes through in your post is not just the recipes and the lack of a discernible French identity, but a carelessness in the preparation as well as concept. Of course I place some hope in Steve's theory that the personal history for you was too strong to allow an accessibility to the new Troisgros style. It is easier for me to accommodate strange things in England and Spain than in France, where I've been too happy dining in the past and where my tastes were formed. France is my retreat and it is far more threatening to lose what I have there, then to be confronted and confounded elsewhere." (Bux)

This, for me, is the most distressing. I would hate to think that France is no longer what you refer to as a retreat. France has not only been the most influential in forming my own personal taste but has also been the scene of my most memorable dining experiences. I would hate to think that this is going by the wayside. I was using Troisgros as THE example (although any other 3 star could be substituted) since Robert is able to make the comparison between the past and the present. In light of this, I wonder if there is there a new Troisgros style? Is it based on the same principles that have made it famous? Has it strayed from the family-run restaurant?

"So I can chalk up your meal to the vagueries of French cooking given the time we live in. Which is mostly framed by our experiences with the Chapels, Robuchon's etc. of the world who cooked when cooking was cooking."(Steve P)

Bux and other e-gullet members have you noticed similar discrepancies between what once was and now is? Is it possible that Steve P is correct and that it is almost impossible to have a "wow" factor? Are we too jaded? Are our expectations too high? Or is a Troisgros doing what it set out to do - be an extraordinary family-run restaurant in Roanne.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Let me quickly say this before I run out to the first eGullet dinner of the Easthampton contingent (that's me and Blondie .) The "wow" factor in French cuisine currently lies among the ingredients, not among the preparations. French technique has been surpassed by the Spaniards in the "wow" factor category. Of course this is a gross generalization and it is not to mean that French haute cuisine technique isn't fabulous, but it ain't the cutting edge anymore. And it certainly doesn't have an exclusive to being "the best in the world" the way it used to.

But if you read Robert's post, he decrys the fact that what he finds to be one of the greatest pieces of fish he has ever seen has been "ruined" by the use of Mirin. If you read more from Robert in the thread, you learn that the best meal he ate in France this summer was his lunch at Arpege. And there couldn't be a more ingredient intensive place where they use the most minimal technique available than Arpege. It is here where France still excels over other countries. The raw ingredients at the high end are so good, no other country compares.

The problem is time has passed them by. Whatever internal source they used to conjure up recreating French cuisine, for at least 3-4 times during the last century seems to be fading. Of course that seems logical for a number of reasons. But the culinary wizards of our time, Passard (minimalist), Gagnaire (Symphonic) and Veyrat (masterful use of herbs?) have in certain ways created lateral gimmicks (I'm sorry I used that word but I'm in a hurry) to create a "wow" factor. Michel Troisgros has attenpted to do the same using Asian marinades and spicing techniques. A more difficult task if you ask me because they originate outside of French cooking philosophy. That he hasn't reached the heights of the others I've mentioned, given his choice of millieu isn't surprising. But once again, I felt he was successful enough at it to not offer harsh crticism Robert has chosen to give. In fact my meal in May of 2001 was glorious. But the only way to resolve this is to make additional visits, keeping Robert's criticism in mind. It looks like Liz is up next. She's in the hot seat.

[lizziee]

I don't know if this is a good or bad omen, but we have reservations for lunch and dinner on Friday, September 13.

[jaybee]

Another such place of halcyon memory is Lameloise. We enjoyed a superb tasting menu there when it was still just one large house with rooms upstairs. A return visit saw the hotel expanded to a large building appended to the old one. The meal was equal to our earlier one, but this was still in the 1980s. I woould be interested in a similar comparison to today's cooking there.

[Bux]

... Of course this is a gross generalization ...

Whew, for a minute I thought we were going to have another twelve pages on this.

[lizziee]

Let me quickly say this before I run out to the first eGullet dinner of the Easthampton contingent

Bux,

Steve was in a hurry, but he'll be back.

[robert brown]

What I notice most in today’s three-star French restaurants, as well as luxury dining in some of the world’s major cities, is how much more economically sensitive they have become and the steady erosion or shrinking of the experience in the past dozen years or so. What I liked most about my visit to Troisgros last week was the professional, civilized and friendly way everyone there treated us. Even if it were somehow insincere or studied, it didn’t feel that way. It contrasted mightily with my experience at Maximin and Le Moulin de Lourmarin, to name a couple of places. Yet, Steve is correct in saying that Troisgros is a kind of museum, living in part on its past and counting on its wine inventory and hotel rooms. Ironically enough, the dining rooms were pretty full and the hotel rooms were largely vacant. I also think that the rare bottles in their “cave” are gathering more age.

I also agree with Steve in the fact that the “wow” factor is harder to find with the passage of time. Chefs have to realize now that only the enthusiasts are willing to go to far a field or make an arduous “tour gastronomique” to eat in France or spend wildly to eat in the best restaurants in Paris. My wife and I were just today talking about how luxury restaurants are truly and maybe even primarily business establishments in which every morsel is weighed and accounted for and every client maneuvered and manipulated. The only relative handful are those that charge prices that no one would have dreamed of three to five years ago. I also believe that chefs in France are spooked because for the first time in culinary history the chef who comes along every half-century to rewrites the book isn’t French (Adria). That, along with other chefs such as Trotter, Keller, Daniel, Jean-George, Ramsey, and White, have made going to France to dine unnecessary for a lot of people even if what they provide is inferior. ( I think the loss of Japanese and Anglo-Saxon clientele has been a major one for the top chefs in France.) All of this is a major distraction to chefs who now can’t concentrate on cooking and deters young talent to open ambitious restaurants in France and instead being hired by hotels or leaving France altogether. (The dream now is to have a restaurant in New York).

Liz, I think Michel Troisgros’ fundamental approach is certainly clean and “pure” if you mean not fussy and overloaded. I certainly did not see any traces of an Adria influence either. The establishment is no longer has a family-run feeling to it, but it is not cold and formal either. (If Pierre had been there it might have felt more familial to me). Maybe their informal restaurant next door, the Hotel Central, does, but it was closed when I was there. The bar serving locals is certainly long gone.

Jaypee, it is strange that you mentioned Lameloise since it occurred to me as well that this could be a restaurant that because it was very much a family affair without a lot of bells and whistles 15 years ago, it may still be close to what it was.

I had written about Arpege, my guess as to the future of high-end dining in France, and a few other topics. However, I lost the post trying to move it from Word to e-gullet and for some reason I can’t get to the recovery file in my Windows 2000. I hope I get a chance later.

[Bux]

Some of this is just natural evolution. Older diners are likely to complain that things aren't like they were in the old days. They always have and they always will. That doesn't mean they aren't right, but times change and dining changes with it, often much to our displeasure. With an eye towards being impartial I have to wonder if Michel Troisgros is floundering in unknown waters with his use of ingredients such as mirin, or if he's using ingredients that are subjectively not what Robert wants in his meal, or in his meal in France. If it's the former, he may still find himself. If it's the latter, I have to ask, or judge for myself, if I will react the same way. While I agree that there are culinary standards and educated palates, much of what we like, or don't like, is based on a subjective reaction. In any creative endeavor, it's often the best educated palate that's often least likely to react favorably to new stimuli and I think that's still true today even if the twentieth century's legacy is make the establishment want to love the avant garde.

The whole luxury dining experience is another issue. I've really come late to enjoy it and feel it's the last thing I'd miss about the great meals I've had. Over time I've come to savor all aspects of the art of dining and to enjoy the rituals of fine dining, but it must center around exceptional food. The fine linens, china and above all the attentive service are nothing to me but an honor to the food I am eating. Without the greatest food, the trappings are hollow and dining on average food in a pampered setting would be like praying to a god I didn't believe in. Sure I'll attend a wedding or funeral in respect for the people involved, but it's not necessarily a religious experience.

[Steve Plotnicki]

How can we love the ritual of fine dining yet be so hypercritical?

"Older diners are likely to complain that things aren't like they were in the old days. They always have and they always will. That doesn't mean they aren't right, but times change and dining changes with it, often much to our displeasure."

Bux - There is one strong factor that weighs against the argument that it's just people of a certain age commenting on change. Those people have lived through the golden age of haute cuisine which peaked in the 80's. It's like jazz. Joshua Redman is a fine musician but, people who saw Sonny Rollins at the Village Vanguard in 1970 react differently to his playing then people who are 25 years old who didn't see Sonny and Shorter etc. in their prime. I think food is the same. Robert's reaction to his meal at El Bulli takes into consideration how groundbreaking the technique is, apart from his liking the meal or not. Michel Troisgros isn't even coming close to skinning that cat. He is trying to reinvent French cuisine with spicing techniques that originate outside of France.

Ultimately I think it isn't Troisgros who is floundering, I think he is doing a valient job of keeping the cuisine and the experience alive. It is the cuisine as a whole that is floundering. Just like jazz, it was exciting to eat the cuisine from chefs who were speaking it for the first time. Now that the younger chefs haven't really invented a language of their own, but are just speaking the same language with the slightest variation, it's just not as interesting. Just look at the list of chefs in France who have lost their perch, not to be replaced by other chefs who can keep the flame burning. Verge, Bocuse, Loisseau, Mennau, etc., loads of them.

[Bux]

Just like jazz, it was exciting to eat the cuisine from chefs who were speaking it for the first time. Now that the younger chefs haven't really invented a language of their own, but are just speaking the same language with the slightest variation, it's just not as interesting. Just look at the list of chefs in France who have lost their perch, not to be replaced by other chefs who can keep the flame burning. Verge, Bocuse, Loisseau, Mennau, etc., loads of them.

First, that older generation had a generation of chefs before it when it was young. This is a continuous process. Each generation will have the artists and the hacks. Some generations will stand out more than others. There will be golden ages and dark ages, but at all times there will be the hacks and a few that stand our. Veyrat, Roellinger, Bras and others sing now. Younger chefs are still in the wings. Restaurants like la Régalade and l'Astrance appear.

Within that greater framework, various chefs will speak to various diners. Not every "creative" chef will be working in a truly creative mode. Some will flounder under the pretense of creating, but all they are doing is not following in anyone's footsteps rather than leading themselves. The big change that we may not be prepared for, could be that some of the most creative chefs will abandon haute cuisine, or at least luxury dining. It will be interesting to see if a place like l'Astrance continues to get good marks and if it will grow into a an elegant restaurant or continue as a chic, but relatively casual place. It will be interesting to see how Robuchon's new operation influences younger chefs. Look at the revival of interest in bistros that followed la Régalade. There was a chef who could have had a fine restaurant, but chose to open a bistro.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - You disagreed with me and then you agreed with me. Every cultural millieu has its era of greatness. There's a reason that swing music is dead. First there are no musicians that are as good at it as Duke Ellington etc. Second if there were, there aren't harmonic combinations left unexplored by the greats of the era that a great musician would find it an interesting genre to work in, let alone the public thinking that. So it's sort of circular. What a surprise that the great creative people of our time, regardless of millieu, work in fields that have creative possibilities that are unexplored.

You can point to other differences between today's French chefs and the ones who were cooking in the 70's and 80's. Chefs like Bocuse, Robuchon, Verge, Blanc, they were almost household names for an entire range of American and British travelers. But are Veyrat, Roellinger and Bras the same? Nobody has heard of them except for chefs and hard core foodies. Why do you think that is? Isn't it because what they have created is pretty much the same as what the chefs of a generation prior created? Saying it another way, if Michel Troisgros's didn't share the family name, would anyone schlep to Roanne? Would Robert have? I don't see Robert schleping to Cancale or to L'Arnsburg. He schlepped to Roane because of the family name. Not because of what Michel Troisgros is known for cooking.

Having tried to sell people popular culture for the past 23 years, I can tell you this. People want to buy a story. They want to buy what is new and groovy and they want new experiences. Today the food experiences they want to have are Nobu, French Laundry, Jean-Georges and a few others. What they don't *need to do* is to schlep to Cancale or L'Arnsburg for a meal that they won't find to be materially different than one at Jean-Georges or Daniel. Now you or I might be willing to do it. But that's like saying we are willing to go to La Scala on a particular night of the season because we like the way a particluar seconday role is performed by a certain singer. And like classical music or jazz today, if discussion about haute cuisine is left unto a bunch of fanatics, then its dying a slow but belly filling death. Culture has to transcend its core audience to be profitable. And you will find that a restaurant, which is in reality a business, desperately needs profitability as a component of the creative process. One has to look no further than L'Astrance, an environment where the books balance so Barbot can be inventive. I'm sure that if he opened a place with a larger scope and he wasn't making ends meet, it would suffer on every level including creativity.

[Bux]

Bux - You disagreed with me and then you agreed with me.

I was going to say that about your last post.

Every cultural millieu has its era of greatness. There's a reason that swing music is dead. First there are no musicians that are as good at it as Duke Ellington etc. Second if there were, there aren't harmonic combinations left unexplored by the greats of the era that a great musician would find it an interesting genre to work in, let alone the public thinking that. So it's sort of circular. What a surprise that the great creative people of our time, regardless of millieu, work in fields that have creative possibilities that are unexplored.

Equally surprising, if not more so, is that the great artists and inventors of any age manage to find a creative possibility where the rest of us fail to see it. It's not that there's really any field without a creative possibility, but that there doesn't exist that person who can find it. When he or she does, hindsight will render it obvious to all of us. We can focus on the chicken or the egg, but the other side of creativity is equally valid.

You can point to other differences between today's French chefs and the ones who were cooking in the 70's and 80's. Chefs like Bocuse, Robuchon, Verge, Blanc, they were almost household names for an entire range of American and British travelers. But are Veyrat, Roellinger and Bras the same?

No, nor are these the 70's or 80's. While there are times that may be judged to be better or worse on an objective scale, they are also different in a relative sense.

Nobody has heard of them except for chefs and hard core foodies. Why do you think that is? Isn't it because what they have created is pretty much the same as what the chefs of a generation prior created?

Why would you believe there is the same audience there was a generation or more ago?

Saying it another way, if Michel Troisgros's didn't share the family name, would anyone schlep to Roanne? Would Robert have? I don't see Robert schleping to Cancale or to L'Arnsburg. He schlepped to Roane because of the family name. Not because of what Michel Troisgros is known for cooking.

In this case, it was more than the family name. There was Robert's own personal history. This is where age and previous experience plays a factor. Nevertheless, Troisgros has some remarkable rating in both Michelin and GaultMillau and the latter is much quicker to recognize change and while I can't dismiss Robert's criticism, I also don't have all the information I need to assess it properly.

Having tried to sell people popular culture for the past 23 years, I can tell you this. People want to buy a story. They want to buy what is new and groovy and they want new experiences. Today the food experiences they want to have are Nobu, French Laundry, Jean-Georges and a few others. What they don't *need to do* is to schlep to Cancale or L'Arnsburg for a meal that they won't find to be materially different than one at Jean-Georges or Daniel. Now you or I might be willing to do it. But that's like saying we are willing to go to La Scala on a particular night of the season because we like the way a particluar seconday role is performed by a certain singer. And like classical music or jazz today, if discussion about haute cuisine is left unto a bunch of fanatics, then its dying a slow but belly filling death. Culture has to transcend its core audience to be profitable. And you will find that a restaurant, which is in reality a business, desperately needs profitability as a component of the creative process. One has to look no further than L'Astrance, an environment where the books balance so Barbot can be inventive. I'm sure that if he opened a place with a larger scope and he wasn't making ends meet, it would suffer on every level including creativity.

The excellence of cusine in the US had only a little to do with quality of cuisine in France, but quite a bit more to do with the flow of tourism. It's a much more complex issue and one could bring many more aspects of tourism into play. A better argument could be made that travelers from the states discovered fine food in France, than that they went there to seek it--at least in the first generation after WWII. A declining interest in travel to Europe is explained by many more factors than the food, or even an interest in food. Because we, (you and I in particular, the habitués of this forum and eGullet members in particular) are so food driven, what drives others is less obvious to us. Hype and genuinely deserved publicity will bring tourists and diners alike, but as often out of curiosity as out of dedicated interest.

What I guess I don't follow here is what I see as an argument that good cooking alone won't assure success for a restaurant. I agree, but I thought Robert's post was about his disappointment with the cooking. I'm afraid all the cosseting in the world is not going to draw Americans to the hotel across from the train station in a town that has almost nothing to offer outside the history of a great, but departed restaurant. Who goes to Vienne and Saulieu except on the hope that the food is good today?

Whether culture has to transcend it's core audience to be profitable is arguable. Certainly l'Astrance has managed to adjust it's business model to be profitable catering to its core audience and it remains to be seen how Barbot develops his business model. I have no disagreement that rstaurants cannot operate at a loss, unless there's enough hope of profit to encourage continued investment. Oh, I suppose I could theoretically accept a premise of a patron endowing a chef to allow an operation to exist as one might commission an opera or some other art project. Certainly the tax write off as a business loss is just as effective as a charitable donation, but would it have the same cachet? In practice, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were a chef.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Equally surprising, if not more so, is that the great artists and inventors of any age manage to find a creative possibility where the rest of us fail to see it. It's not that there's really any field without a creative possibility, but that there doesn't exist that person who can find it. "

You know this just isn't true. There aren't any successful cubist painters today. Not if you define success as the fame painters like Picasso and Braque achieved. And there are no jazz musicians who achieve the fame of Miles and Trane either. There aren't any commercially successful operas, if you consider successful to be a Puccini etc., and there aren't even any successful Broadway musicals that are in the style that was prevelent up until 1970. And it isn't that there aren't artists who don't work in those milleus, and countless others I can mention, it's just that nobody cares about them. And the reason nobody cares about them is they are not painting Guernica, recording Kind of Blue and writing Oklahoma, all great works of art that transcended their core audience into being some type of commercial success. In fact in most instances they aren't even making small contributions to the genres.

It's for this reason, and this reason only, that not many people are heading off to Roanne for dinner. There aren't many magazines and books that are telling people they absolutely have to go. And the reason they aren't telling people that is there isn't really a compelling reason to go. Unless of course it is you, I, Robert, etc. that we are describing. But to the average Joe, there isn't any cooking going on in those places that we "can't live without." Almost everyone except newbie's have eaten it already. The same way we have heard the same riffs played in a jazz solo hundreds of times, seen the same women's face depicted in multi-dimension or heard variations of "Another Opening, Another Show" from a dozen different composers.

I'm afraid it doesn't get much more complex than this and to overanalyze why French haute cuisine is in the doldrums won't get us very far. You only have to look at the milliuu that Pascal Barbot and Joel Robuchon *chose to work in.* Clearly you can make a lot more money selling 65 meals a night at 300 euros a clip than 40 meals at 100 euros. Unless of course you can't make any money doing it. And that can only be for two reasons. The economics don't work. Or the cooking isn't good enough to make the economics work. It doesn't seem to matter which one it is because it brings you to the exact same place. It ain't good enough to stand at the same vantage point it stood at 20 years ago because it overcame the economics, which is the test of any restaurant that is partially artistic and partially a business.

[robert brown]

Steve, I think we are right at the inflection point to see which model works best, or if at all. We should know within a year if the 300-euro meal keeps certain restaurants in business or gets cut in half along with one’s enjoyment.

I wonder if some of the reasons for chef burnout have to do with the lack of challenge resulting from the cutting back and the changing tastes. I believe we now have to think in pan-European terms in our gastronomic travel. Instead of trying to hit the French three-stars, we should consider spreading out to Northern Spain and Italy. Instead of considering visiting only “big” restaurants, we should knock around markets and shops. Just in the past week my wife and I have spent quite a bit of time watching “Gourmet TV”, Robuchon’s cheap version of the Food Network. We watched a program in which the correspondent hoped around to little places near Le Lavandou. We noted a couple of names so that on our next trip we can visit them. The program made them look delicious even though they don’t get big ratings in the guidebooks. Gastronomic travel is shifting to different kinds of pleasures from which I still get lots of kicks.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert - Well the little places were always a part of gastronomic travel. In fact for me they were always more important then the 3 star places. On a trip to the Cote d'Azur, I enjoy eating a meal at the level of Chibois but I often visit there and don't take a meal at that level. But I would never pass up eating at La Cave or Loulou. And even in Paris, I usually take my meals at bistros. So I don't think the smaller places are really anything new. And while you're right that we need to branch out into Spain and Italy, and other countries too including the U.K., none of that speaks to the age old tradition of a haute cuisine meal.

This is why I always thought the right metaphor for haute cuisine was the opera. An artform where all the melodies have already been written and where they have all been performed before, so many times. Yet people still go and they still fly all over the world to do it. And they dress up too. Is that what haute cuisine is coming too? Is Lucas-Carton and Troisgros like the opera and Arpege and L'Astrance like a chamber music concert?

[Bux]

You know this just isn't true. There aren't any successful cubist painters today. Not if you define success as the fame painters like Picasso and Braque achieved.

Correct. All one has to do is redefine the terms and narrow the discussion to eliminate conflicting points. There will never be another renaissance man or a great new twentieth century novel in the strict sense either. Cubism is not an art but a style and as with all styles it has to go out of fashion. Is fine dining either an art or style?

[Bux]

Robert - Well the little places were always a part of gastronomic travel.

It is quite possible to travel on one's stomach in areas without a starred restaurant, although it may not resemble the grand gourmet tour as is often expressed here. It's rare for me to have multi-starred meals in a row for more than two days. For all that Roellinger means to me in terms of great food, when I think of going to Brittany, I am apt to salivate over the thought of tasty eggs on a great ham crepe with perhaps a bowl of Breton cider. A gateau basque is something that makes me take as great a detour as at least a two star restaurant and may be something I crave more than dessert in a multi-starred restaurant. We have been knocking around markets and shops for a long time and generally spend more time doing that than eating in starred restaurants. One of the things that's drawn us to northern Spain has been the proliferation of excellent restaurants, but the success of our trips has been at least as dependant on discovering a local cuisine as we travel. What's disappearing in France, it seems, is regional food and that's perhaps a greater loss than haute cuisine, at least to some.

[cabrales]

Troisgros is offering the following special meal at 160 euros/person, with included described wines.

"Cubic" de tomate (Cubic of tomato)

Consommé de Noques au cumin, courgettes (Consomme of ? with cumin, zucchini)

Poêlée d'anguille et grenouilles aux noisettes, beurre de câpres (Pan-fried eels and frogs with hazelnut and caper butter)

Fritot de pigeon et foie gras "Koumir", cueillette de champignons (Fritot of pigeon, with foie gras and mushrooms)

Cannelloni tiède de chèvre aux herbes (Warm cannelloni with chevre and herbs)

Quatuor de desserts (Dessert)

The beverages are: (1) Touraine 2000 Domaine Marionnet, (2) Coteaux du Languedoc Saint Georges d'Orque 1999, (3) Pacherenc du Vic Bilh 2000, and (4) water and coffee.

[Orik]

Noques

Austrian soup dumplings?

[Bux]

My guess is that Noques are not dumplings if only because the word is capitalized. On the other hand I can't find a place called "Noques" in a French gazette. Perhaps it's some sort of humor. (Noques-Noques joke?)

I see there are a few spots open according to the web site, and that there's a student discount price of 115 euros (sur présentation de la carte) for card carrying students.

[Sandra Levine]

Noques