World's best restaurant is French

[pixelchef]

Hunh. Susur didn't even make the top 50 this year. Bullshit.

[marcus]

Any publicity is good publicity.  Hype over substance.  Ultimately an implicit deception targetted at a gullible audience that would probably appreciate real direction.  Is this really something to be proud of?

Sorry. that's a load of smug self-satisfied cobblers.

This is a very interesting disconnect here. I don't feel smug or self satisfied. I just don't accept or have any sympathy at all for what is clearly a defensive rationalization.

[Bux]

No no no. It's just a huge and terribly succesful marketing exercise by Restaurant Magazine who, good luck to them, pulled off a blinder.

Q. Would you like to be on the list of 10 most respected magazines or the 10 most reviled magazines? [substitute critic, web site, chef, etc. for "magazine," if you will.]

A. Yes.

[docsconz]

A list is just a list. It is another way to have some fun. It is food for thought and discussion whether one agrees or disagrees with it. I'm sure we've all had experience with restaurants not on the list that we feel should be and vice versa. Each of us probably has our own internal list, compiled or not, as to how we feel about the restaurants we've been to. Take 300 different judges (especially from different parts of the world) and you will probably get a very different list, although I'm sure there would be a lot of agreement. Hell, we at eGullet could probably compile our own top 50.Wouldn't that be food for thought .

[Andy Lynes]

Bruno Brooks?...any particular reason he was there?  was he running the disco after the awards?

He was Master of Ceremonies and Roger Moore gave out the awards.

[Paul Bell]

it is when your other job is working for The Observer

Work? I thought we had already established - "eats out a lot, writes a bit"

(or should that be jealous)

Paul

[Simon Majumdar]

Bruno Brooks?...any particular reason he was there?  was he running the disco after the awards?

He was Master of Ceremonies and Roger Moore gave out the awards.

A-list gig then?

Was Peter Powell unavailable?

S

[Matthew Grant]

The judges were quite an International crowd but admittedly there was quite a heavy lean towards British based critics. I'd like to back Andy up, this was an amazing gathering of people, I can't think of too many events where this number of top chefs/ representatives of retaurants would turn up without any sort of VIP treatment. However much we argue (and clearly we will), these awards appear to be genuinely sort after. Why else would people fly in from all around the world, I noticed a slight look of disappointment on Tetsuya's face when he came in at 37, presumably he had flown in from Sydney. We all know Ferran Adria is a private man, he turned up, collected his award and personally said nothing. Lots of the international restaurants had sent along contingents and the cheered when their names came up. Thomas Keller, travelled all the way from the Napa valley for 2 minutes on stage and a nice little trophy, all for some awards ceremony that means nothing? This must mean something to them for them to have travelled this far?

[Paul Bell]

I am not commentating on the status of the awards here (nice name check for Thom in the Guardian by the way), but perhaps this says as much about the ego and publicity seeking nature of chefs or some chefs?

(were all their restaurants closed for the night by the way or was the poor paying customer being stuffed again?) (or perhaps we won't go there again?)

Paul

[macrosan]

... This must mean something to them for them to have travelled this far?

No argument about that, Matthew. And indeed I see nothing wrong with an industry bash where all those terrific people get together to meet and to chew over topics of mutual interest. My complaint (and it really is only a very mild whimper) is that media people should suppose that people outside the industry might want to read about it. The media are the first to explain to us all that they perform an important public service, that they should enjoy immunity from certain laws to which the rest of have to subscribe, and they go on endlessly about the "freedom of the press". This sort of event does that self-perception no good.

Incidentally, the old saw (repeated here) that "any publicity is good publicity" reduces the industry to the level of Max Clifford and his like, which I find sad. Ignoring the proven factual nonsense of the claim, what concerns me more is the total lack of any sense of values that the statement displays. I love the restaurant industry, and I'm just a customer. I really think less of a restaurateur who believes I'll be attracted to his establishment by a report of £46,000 bill, or by a manufactured publicity stunt like having someone slap a celebrity's face at dinner, or by coming number 23 in an unqualified "best of" list.

Of course that's just me, and of course in the context of restaurants I know it's pretty harmless. The good news is that nothing has (yet) irked me any more than this today

[Matthew Grant]

My complaint (and it really is only a very mild whimper) is that media people should suppose that people outside the industry might want to read about it. The media are the first to explain to us all that they perform an important public service, that they should enjoy immunity from certain laws to which the rest of have to subscribe, and they go on endlessly about the "freedom of the press". This sort of event does that self-perception no good.

Am I right in thinking that you would rather not have heard about this gathering of influential chefs and restaurateurs? Personally, being a massive fan of eating out I would be mighty disappointed if I ony heard whispers on the grapevine ("Pssst....did you hear Keller and Adria were in town last night, don't tell anybody else though, the general public will be furious"). Or are you saying that Restaurant magazine should never have organised it as it has no worth?

Either argument I think is silly, this is of interest to anybody who has an appreciation of eating out. Of course this is a huge publicity coup but I can't imagine many restaurant fans that wouldn't want to read about it.

[Simon Majumdar]

Am I right in thinking that you would rather not have heard about this gathering of influential chefs and restaurateurs?

To be honest I could not give a monkey's sphincter if they are in town. No more than I care if J Lo is in town puffing up her new film/record.

I could however give a damn if they were in the kitchen on the night I was there. They are after all chefs not celebrities ( someone hand Lynes the smelling salts would you?)

S

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

hey simon, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning. by the very nature of these mega chefs being who they are they've become celebrities, like it or not. personally, i derive great satisfaction knowing all of my idols had to endure close quarters with each other.

[macrosan]

Am I right in thinking that you would rather not have heard about this gathering of influential chefs and restaurateurs?

I'm with Simon on this. If I'd seen the healdine "Chefs gather for a party and "Oscar" ceremony" in my paper, I would not have bothered to read it. More important than that, I would begrudge space being taken up in my newspaper (which I purchase for money) that I would rather see devoted to news, or to readers' letters, or whatever other functions I might believe a newspaper serves. But most important of all, I don't like being "drawn" to read about it by a headline on eGullet.

Or are you saying that Restaurant magazine should never have organised it as it has no worth?

Oh no, I think the event itself is great, so I disagree with Simon on this one. (Well thank goodness for that, at least it shows I retain some common sense). Good industry get-togethers are in my experience of enormous value to the industry in generating new ideas and disseminating best practice.

[Paul Bell]

hey simon, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning

Have you not noticed, he is always like this, although much as I hate it I do largely agree with him.

by the very nature of these mega chefs being who they are they've become celebrities

Only in their own imaginations in most cases.

Paul

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

hey simon, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning

Have you not noticed, he is always like this, although much as I hate it I do largely agree with him.

by the very nature of these mega chefs being who they are they've become celebrities

Only in their own imaginations in most cases.

Paul

are factions forming

[Simon Majumdar]

hey simon, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning

Have you not noticed, he is always like this, although much as I hate it I do largely agree with him.

by the very nature of these mega chefs being who they are they've become celebrities

Only in their own imaginations in most cases.

Paul

are factions forming

Yup

Those who hate celebrity chefs and those who want to be one

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Hey fair enough. If being a celeb. chef meant swilling Billecarte with T. Keller at a star studded gala I'll sell my ass to the highest bidder. I think the whole celebrity sellout angle was discussed in a previous thread, that you can find here

[Matthew Grant]

personally, i derive great satisfaction knowing all of my idols had to endure close quarters with each other.

Spencer, I never knew you held myself, Andy and Jay in such high regard

Edited April 30, 2003 by Matthew Grant (log)

[Andy Lynes]

Hey fair enough.  If being a celeb. chef meant swilling Billecarte with T. Keller

Laurent - Perrier actually. Very nice though.

[marcus]

People who participated in this event seemed to have a wonderful time and gained lots of personal satisfaction. The fact that many leading chefs participated is not surprising, for them it was free publicity. The producers of this spectacle seem unconcerned that the key rationale for the meeting was to produce an ordered list of the 50 best restaurants in the world. The list was produced with a methodology that makes Zagat, frequently and correctly maligned on this site, look like high science by comparison, and the end result has no credibility or validity, even to those who participated in producing it. Make no mistake, many people will copy this list and use it. Although one can argue that none of the restaurants are bad, people will spend time and money on a lesser experience than they would have had if they had received better guidance. I for one view this whole exercise as a public disservice.

[Bux]

People who participated in this event seemed to have a wonderful time and gained lots of personal satisfaction.  The fact that many leading chefs participated is not surprising, for them it was free publicity.  The producers of this spectacle seem unconcerned that the key rationale for the meeting was to produce an ordered list of the 50 best restaurants in the world.  The list was produced with a methodology that makes Zagat, frequently and correctly maligned on this site, look like high science by comparison, and the end result has no credibility or validity, even to those who participated in producing it.  Make no mistake, many people will copy this list and use it.  Although one can argue that none of the restaurants are bad, people will spend time and money on a lesser experience than they would have had if they had received better guidance.  I for one view this whole exercise as a public disservice.

But it's only a disservice to that part of the public that wouldn't know great food if it hit them in the face. The greater part of the public would much prefer to pick their restaurants on service and ambience and given the opportunity to sit in a room with celebrities would choose to eat where the rich and famous eat. To a great extent, this greatest restaurants list was just that -- where the rich, famous and gastronomically half clued choose to eat. Let's face it, a great restaurant doesn't even have to serve particularly good food to be thought of as a great restaurant by the public.

[Andy Lynes]

The list, as published in restaurant magazine is fully contextualised with an explanation of how it was compiled and some or all of the names (can't remember which) of those consulted. The reader should therefore be in a position to decide for themselves how valid the results of the survey are. In my opinion, it would be unlikely that someone contemplating visiting Marc Veyrat's restaurants for example would decide against it based on the fact that they are entirely absent from the list.

Even if the list is reported out of context, what is the real attendant risk? Someone attempts to book the French Laundry who otherwise may not have? Who is to say that a meal at Louis XV would necessarily be a lesser experience than Plaza Athene?

[marcus]

I'm afraid that the list will be copied, but not the entire article, and the context will be lost over time. It is not even clear that an average reader of the article will recognize the methadological flaws in the first place. One can argue that it doesn't really matter, that its better than nothing, or take a cynical view of the public as proposed by Bux. However, I continue to believe that a better list would offer the opportunity of a better result for the public, and that a responsible magazine trying to exploit this area should have done a more serious job.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Hey fair enough.  If being a celeb. chef meant swilling Billecarte with T. Keller

Laurent - Perrier actually. Very nice though.

YOU RULE LYNES....