Blue Hill (NYC)

[jordyn]

Fat Guy:

Similarly to Mao, I'm hoping you could elaborate more on the question of how important good tasting food is to your evaluation of a restaurant. It's not clear to me from any of your messages if you think the food is tasty but simply not in your preferred style, or if you actually don't enjoy the taste very much but still recognize the quality of preparation.

[cabrales]

The Amex Platinum July 2002 newsletter describes a November 5, 2002 Food & Wine Best New Chef Event at Blue Hill:

"Join Food & Wine Magazine's 2002 Best New Chefs . . . Dan Barber and Mike Anthony at Blue Hill in New York City as they host a team of alumni Best New Chef award-winners. Your multi-course feast will highlight the culinary skills of these extraordinary talents, complemented by wines from Frederick Wildman & Sons, Ltd."

Alumni Best New Chef participants (subject to change) are described as (1) Laurent Tourondel of Cello, (2) Rocco DiSpirito of Union Pacific, (3) Scott Bryan of Veritas, (4) Andrew Carmellini of Cafe Boulud, and (5) Wylie DuFresne of WD50.

The cost is $375/person, with 80 reservations available in total and a maximum of 4 reservations per member. Ticket sales begin on July 30, 2002 at 2 pm EST. A comparable event is scheduled for October 15, 2002 in Chicago, hosted by Grant Achatz at Trio.

[Fat Guy]

Well, I actually don't like the taste of mackerel. For all I know it's a physiological thing. But whatever the reason is, I would never choose to order mackerel and I don't enjoy eating it. But I can sit in a sushi place and have four pieces of mackerel put in front of me and I can taste them and understand why one is better than the other and I can put them in the same rank order that any experienced sushi eater would. Or, if there's room for debate, I can engage in that debate as fully as any mackerel lover. It's just a question of setting aside the preference and looking at what information is left over.

It's the same with a dish that's built around mackerel. So I don't like mackerel, so what? I can evaluate the dish. As mentioned above, it's a question of proper cooking, intelligent combinations of ingredients, etc. I can discern that without loving a dish. And a judgment about a restaurant is just an amalgam of individual dish judgments like that. It's theoretically possible to assemble a menu focusing on all my least favorite ingredients, and if that menu is brilliant and the chef is brilliant and everything about the restaurant is awesome I'm going to know that's the best restaurant in the world even though there's not a damn thing there that I like.

Now I'm not a picky eater or anything. I can't even think of ten mainstream ingredients I affirmatively dislike. But I'm sure there are ten. I'd just have to think about it.

Of course the taste of food is important to me. It should be plain to anyone that I love food and that one of the most important things in my life is eating food that tastes good to me. But if somebody is paying me to write about food, I don't see myself as getting paid to unload my hangups on the audience. I'm supposed to speak with the palate of an experienced diner who appreciates the things that experienced diners appreciate.

I'm no porn star, but sometimes restaurant reviewing is like that. You've got to perform whether you've got a cold or you're tired or you think the person (or in my case food) you've been paired up with is wack. Whatever personal issues you have need to get put aside and you need to behave like a pro.

Nobody wants to read, "The burdens of my life are so great, woe is me, I worry all the time about how I'm going to pay my Visa bill and the last thing I wanted to do was go out and do a six-course mackerel tasting menu because mackerel tastes nasty and fishy and metallic to me even when it's the good stuff that's not supposed to taste that way. But I choked it down and made some observations about it, and even though mackerel makes me want to gag I think if you're one of those idiots who likes mackerel you'd probably like this place." They want to read something more along the lines of: "The Spanish mackerel at this cool place is the best in the whole damn world." Now there may be some perverse folks on eGullet who actually would rather read the latter, just as there are people who would actually think it's neat to see a porno movie where the star says, "Hey, you know, I'm really not enjoying this sex act; I'm a little tired and things at home aren't going all that well for me. Can we just cuddle and talk?" And I'm always here to provide subtext to that subculture of hyper-interested people, but mostly what you're supposed to do as a journalist is find a certain critical distance that allows you to put the best of yourself into your writing while not letting the whole shebang become solipsistic.

It's not like this comes up all that often. I have mainstream tastes, if you define the mainstream as the gourmet community. And I have some personal tastes that I do willingly impose on my audience because sometimes I think the consensus of gourmets is demonstrably outlandish (such as in the widespread failure to comprehend what makes risotto good). But once in awhile I do find myself telling myself that the only reason I don't like a dish is because I'm not partial to dishes with a lot of rosemary but I'm hyper-rosemary-sensitive so I need to put myself in the shoes of a rosemary-normal person and ask whether from that perspective the dish is good. And if it is that's what I write.

[cabrales]

Steven -- Sometimes it is not only the substance of what your reviews indicate that is important, but how the discussion is framed (e.g., connotation of words, etc.) If you are comfortable discussing it, could you indicate the extent (if any) to which you seek to convey your own preferences through the framing/language of a review?

I have particular ingredients (e.g., chicken, eggs, Brittany lobsters) that I like, but no ingredients (apart from waterchestnuts) that I cannot take in. I generally order what appears most interesting (including in view of a dish's history) and/or most potentially delicious to me. I hold a restaurant accountable for presenting a sufficiently broad and appealing menu that I would find items to order. Thus, I do not adjust for whether the ingredients included in dishes offered are products that I like. If the dish is not subjectively delicious to me, no mitigating factors are available in the manner you suggest.

[Fat Guy]

If you are comfortable discussing it, could you indicate the extent (if any) to which you seek to convey your own preferences through the framing/language of a review?

I'm not sure in a review you really get to do that on a grand scale. There's too much to say in too little space to worry about building an argument. But in my longer analytical food essays I frame the issues by starting with the basics and the background and laying it all out the way I think it needs to be understood. Then when it comes time for my conclusions well of course they're the most natural things in the world.

As for your other point I can't get inside your head and say for sure whether you've properly evaluated yourself or not. But take the example of dark chocolate. You don't seem to like it very much. But surely you realize that it is the consensus of just about every serious pastry chef in the world that dark chocolate rocks. Now can you eat a dark chocolate dessert and get some critical distance and evaluate it by the standards professional pastry chef use to evaluate dark chocolate desserts, or is that just outside the realm of what you can handle intellectually? I think the former.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"But I can sit in a sushi place and have four pieces of mackerel put in front of me and I can taste them and understand why one is better than the other and I can put them in the same rank order that any experienced sushi eater would."

Fat Guy - Then how come you can't do that with hamburger and steak?

[cabrales]

If I received a chocolate dessert (e.g., in a tasting menu or a surprise menu), it would be less favorable to my assessment of the meal than if I had received most cherry or lemon desserts. I do not consider that kind of assessment unfair to the applicable restaurant. In time, with learning on chocolate, I could probably evaluate chocolate desserts. However, chocolate desserts are evaluated less favorably because (1) I like them less, and (2) I know I am not good at evaluating them such that I would give less weight to a favorable or unfavorable subjective rough impression.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales - If you are in a restaurant and have ordered a surprise menu and you do not prefer to be served choclate for dessert, then you should just say so at the beginning of the meal. 100% of the restaurants in the world will accomodate you. Otherwise, if a restaurant brings you a chocolate dessert when you don't say anything, I don't see how you are entitled ito hold it against them? Most people like chocolate and chocolate desserts are probably the most ordered desserts. How is a restaurant to know that you are chocolate averse if you don't tell them?

[Bux]

I don't do it as often as I used to, but I'm still quite liable to order something I don't like, or at least something I have little aforehand knowledge about whether I'll like it or not. I don't do it as often because I'm just older and weaker (in terms of giving in to my own tastes) or because I'm running out of things I don't like. In terms of the latter it's a case of try it again, you might like it next time--hey this stuff isn't so bad, I only thought I didn't like it. Much of what we like is the result of acquired taste. Acquiring tastes is a neat hobby. It's akin to stamp collecting or wine collecting. Well it would be akin to stamp collecting if you collected mint US stamps with the idea of actually using them in the future. At the same time it's not like wine collecting for investment.

[Steve Klc]

Cabrales--when you write "If I received a chocolate dessert (e.g., in a tasting menu or a surprise menu), it would be less favorable to my assessment of the meal than if I had received most cherry or lemon desserts. I do not consider that kind of assessment unfair to the applicable restaurant," I find this potentially very revealing, and as Steve P did and Steve Shaw probably would say: well, yes, it is unfair.

I'm intrigued by what has begun to emerge on this thread--differences in philosophy, approach, the role of personal preference and the appropriate use of the term "subjective" to qualify reviews--and I thank cabrales and Steve Shaw for taking the lead in exploring it.

[Fat Guy]

Fat Guy - Then how come you can't do that with hamburger and steak?

I can do it just fine. You're the one who can't seem to get this filet mignon and strip thing straight.

[Fat Guy]

Cabrales--when you write "If I received a chocolate dessert (e.g., in a tasting menu or a surprise menu), it would be less favorable to my assessment of the meal than if I had received most cherry or lemon desserts. I do not consider that kind of assessment unfair to the applicable restaurant," I find this potentially very revealing, and as Steve P did and Steve Shaw probably would say:  well, yes, it is unfair.

Chocolate is an unassailable ingredient. It is as canonical as potatoes or lamb or veal stock. When a restaurant puts chocolate in front of you, the legitimacy of chocolate is not an issue up for discussion.

[cabrales]

On the point about fairness, why would a diner take into account a sommelier's recommendation and its appropriateness to the particular diner (recognizing that wine may be have certain "objective" characteristics; however, pairing with the meal and its saucing is rather subjective with respect to subtleties) in evaluating a restaurant, but not the composition and ingredients of the dessert or any other dish? I wouldn't necessarily downgrade my assessment of a restaurant that served me a chocolate-based dessert, but a lemon or cherry dessert would be much more helpful to the meal.

Consider this. In France, woodcock or becasse is prohibited from being sold in restaurants. Monaco too. I had woodcock for the first time during last year's season at Michelin-one-starred Putney Bridge near London. That game bird was prepared very well, with the classical items placed on a little crouton. (The chef is Anthony Demeter, spelling, formerly a sous-chef of La Tante Claire's Pierre Koffman; very technically adept, and generally offering good cuisine). Of course the inclusion of woodcock in the meal led me to look upon the meal more favorably than if I had been served, say, only pigeonneau. Same when I had woodcock for the first time at Waterside Inn -- excellent. When I returned shortly thereafter and the restaurant remembered I had had the restaurant's classic preparation, that had to be taken into account in my evaluation of the meal. (As to how they remembered: my calling about the availability of woodcock several times) When the team brought out saucing with a side of bulbous, ripe but not too ripe, peeled green grapes (without knowing that is one of my favorite things to eat and rarely found in restaurant dishes for some reason) for the woodcock, did I let that strong personal preference for that form of peeled green grapes affect my assessment of the meal? Definitely.

[Fat Guy]

On the point about fairness, why would a diner take into account a sommelier's recommendation and its appropriateness to the particular diner ... in evaluating a restaurant, but not the composition and ingredients of the dessert or any other dish?

I wouldn't judge a sommelier's performance based on my idiosyncrasies. If I find a sommelier whose tastes are right on target with my own, I'll go back and re-utilize that sommelier. But it doesn't make me say, "Hey, that's the best damn sommelier in the world because we always agree." If I was giving out the best-sommelier-in-the-world award, that's the last thing I'd look at. Cabrales, it's like with the Supreme Court. Most people assume the Supreme Court justices just sit around and vote whether or not they like the idea of prayer in the schools or whatever. But anybody who studies the subject knows that only the fringe justices do that. The rest of them play by a set of rules called the Constitution. There may be room for discussion about what that set of rules means, but ultimately you've got to acknowledge it as the benchmark. That's why you find plenty of instances where a justice might say, "Well I find prayer in the schools to be a nice thing but I think it's unconstitutional," or vice-versa. It's just like a food critic saying, "My favorite thing to eat in the whole world is a Snickers bar but that doesn't mean Georges Blanc can serve me a Snickers bar for dessert and get away with it. I would consider it conclusive proof that he's an incompetent idiot, even though it's my favorite food."

[Jinmyo]

Why not restate this current discussion in a new thread on the General forum?

[Fat Guy]

Good idea, Jin. Did you just volunteer to do that?

[bushey]

Cabrales - If you are in a restaurant and have ordered a surprise menu and you do not prefer to be served choclate for dessert, then you should just say so at the beginning of the meal. 100% of the restaurants in the world will accomodate you.  Otherwise, if a restaurant brings you a chocolate dessert when you don't say anything,  I don't see how you are entitled ito hold it against them? Most people like chocolate and chocolate desserts are probably the most ordered desserts. How is a restaurant to know that you are chocolate averse if you don't tell them?

I learned an invaluable lesson the first time I was shy about speaking up in a restaurant about preferences, and it involved a choclate dessert. Or, rather, the lack thereof.

My husband and I had a lovely prix fixe dinner at a French restaurant where we had a choice for almost all the courses. When it was time for dessert, the waitress brought over a plum tart, sort of an upside down cake. To my husband, if it ain't chocolate, it ain't dessert and the waitress saw he looked a little disappointed. Her English was nonexistent and my French was pretty rusty but it was clear she was asking if it was alright. My husband insisted everything was fine -- I told him I would say something if he wanted me to, but he declined. The moment passed and a little later, after he had tried the tart he said "Gee, I wish you could ask for something chocolate." At that point it felt awkward and my French wasn't quite good enough to make a pleasant joke and ask for a substitute. Boy, was he glad to see the decadent choclate truffles they served with espresso..............

But I learned that it's always better to make your wishes known if you can do so politely, and especially when it's clear that the restaurant wants you to be happy. So now when I order Chef's choice sushi, I always ask if they can substitute something for mackerel (as long as it's not abalone ).

[Scottf]

"The crux, or should I say "meat" of the matter. Please clarify this. Was the meat "off" as in spoiled--not a good ingredient--in which case it should have been returned, or are you saying that it's not a good ingredient. That would be an even greater criticism of Scott. While the restaurant offered several ingredients, Scott chose this one above all the others. There remains the possibility that you found fault with the way it was cooked, although we have no information on that."

FWIW, I actually quite liked the duck dish. Ther breast was tender, following the poaching method and the skin was removed. The sauce was sweet, I'd guess with lots of honey, but it suited the duck and worked nicely giving the carrots a glazed flavour. As Simon pointed out the side duck which I think was leg (it had been formed into a cake), was fatty and full of flavour.

I think there was a lack of communication on our arrival, because although the waiter said the chef would like to cook for us he said it in such a manner that we interpreted it as a standard line offered to all guests (that may be the case of course).

Mark mentioned he knew we were coming as he'd checked the thread earlier that day and communicated with Bux also. I think if we'd have been given a friendlier welcome things may have worked out differently.

I would like to mention an extra dish we were presented of Smoked Sturgeon. It was very simple and the smokiness was subtle, but I was left with a smoky after taste when the dish was finished that I liked a lot.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Sally's better than Pepe's? I haven't eaten pizza in 13 years so I have no dog in that fight but, I used to love that white clam pizza at Pepe's. I even drove from NYC to New Haven for dinner a few times just to eat it.

[LaNiña]

I think The Spot is better than Sallly's or Pepe's.

Love,

Girl who grew up in New Haven

[Lesley C]

Who said Blue Hill is the kind of place that would have one Michelin star in Paris? No way! Blue Hill is too casual for that. It's good, but really, I can't think of anything to get excited about (except maybe the Quebec foie gras). Simon's review seemed fair to me, though I'd up the score to a 7/10.

Then again, Gramercy Tavern didn't do it for me either. I'm starting to get the impression American restaurants are overrated on this board.

[Bux]

Who said Blue Hill is the kind of place that would have one Michelin star in Paris? No way! Blue Hill is too casual for that.

Fourteen of the one star restaurants in Paris are two fork and spoon places and one is a single set of crossed fork and spoon. I didn't think l'Astrance was much less casual than Blue Hill and l'Astrance is in the 16ième, not Greenwich Village.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee I don't keep up with my Michelin stars but do places like l'Epi Dupin, La Regalade. L'os Moelle etc. get a Michelin star? That is what I was referring to because Blue Hill is in the same category (both cooking and environment) as those places.

[cabrales]

Gee I don't keep up with my Michelin stars but do places like l'Epi Dupin, La Regalade. L'os Moelle etc. get a Michelin star? That is what I was referring to because Blue Hill is in the same category (both cooking and environment) as those places.

Steve P -- I'd disagree with the above quote.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Are you saying it's better or worse? I'm not saying either. I'm saying that if I walked into a "bistro moderne" in Paris and they served me exactly what they serve at Blue Hill I wouldn't be surprised at all. Of course you have to accomodate American ingredients etc. But overall, I think their mission at Blue Hill is the same as what they would like to accomplish at a place like Les Allobroges in Paris.