Per Se

[chefboy24]

This wasn't some mistake Ulterior Epicure made that he needed to be hounded for. He was following the standard procedure for talking about restaurants. You may want to change that procedure -- you seem to feel very strongly about it -- but currently this is how people talk about restaurants.

No one is "hounding" anyone, it's just a spirited discussion, last time I checked, that is what the whole forum is for.

I guess we just read in different styles.

I understand the fact that people may talk about chefs in a general context and trust me, this is the least of my worries.

To write a detailed review about how a chef ORCHESTRATED a specific preparation in a tasting menu when you can factually prove he wasnt even in the country is absurd.

Nothing wrong with saying "kitchen" or "named" sous chefs/CDP's/CDC.

Some people just dont feel like dropping $800 on dinner for two based on the romantic journalism of who is in the kitchen.

←

its more likely that the executive chef (celebrity or otherwise) has already come up with what the tasting menu is going to be (whether its 4, 5, 7, 9 courses, etc), which of his a la carte items are going on the tasting menu, the portion size, the order of the menu, etc etc. even if he's not in the kitchen that night, he still came up with the tasting size portion of each course in his tasting menu.

and further. if frank bruni (or steve cuozzo, or adam platt, or whoever) is in the dining room that night, and the restaurant is in its review cycle, you can *guarantee* that the chef (and not one of his sous's or line cooks) is plating up that food for the reviewer.

Edited April 15, 2006 by chefboy24 (log)

[chefboy24]

"I am at all my restaurants all the time."

--Ducasse

←

bold words when you go thru..... what....... 3 chefs de cuisine in 5 years?

still, some of the best meals i have eaten in my life were adny and ad monaco.

[ulterior epicure]

I understand the fact that people may talk about chefs in a  general context

To write a detailed review about how a chef ORCHESTRATED a specific preparation in a tasting menu when you can factually prove he wasnt even in the country is absurd.

It seems you don't understand, then. There's nothing "absurd" about what Ulterior Epicure wrote. He was just speaking English.

Thank you Fat Guy! At least someone understood me! I was beginning to wonder...

[Vadouvan]

Well let s agree to disagree, time to move on...

[M.X.Hassett]

In regards to Keller being in the Kitchen I read that he is running a T line between PS and TFL which allows him pan and scan video ability to either kitchen.

[ckkgourmet]

I saw a screen in the kitchen of the French Laundry that I was told allowed Keller to see exactly what was going on in Per Se's kitchen, real time. This implies that somebody wants to control, as best as possible, the activities in both places as minutely as possible.

[Vadouvan]

I saw a screen in the kitchen of the French Laundry that I was told allowed Keller to see exactly what was going on in Per Se's kitchen, real time. This implies that somebody wants to control, as best as possible, the activities in both places as minutely as possible.

Is there any time when he is in neither kitchen ?

If so what's the point, apparently restaurant reviews are to be equated with creative fiction, If its ok to write about the chef being there when he actually isnt, why even bother going, we can just read the menu and write the review, what difference does it make ?

actually eating the food after all is a minor detail........

[molto e]

I saw a screen in the kitchen of the French Laundry that I was told allowed Keller to see exactly what was going on in Per Se's kitchen, real time. This implies that somebody wants to control, as best as possible, the activities in both places as minutely as possible.

←

The monitor in TFL kitchen looking into kitchen at Per Se

[ulterior epicure]

I saw a screen in the kitchen of the French Laundry that I was told allowed Keller to see exactly what was going on in Per Se's kitchen, real time. This implies that somebody wants to control, as best as possible, the activities in both places as minutely as possible.

Is there any time when he is in neither kitchen ?

If so what's the point, apparently restaurant reviews are to be equated with creative fiction, If its ok to write about the chef being there when he actually isnt, why even bother going, we can just read the menu and write the review, what difference does it make ?

actually eating the food after all is a minor detail........

←

... so, what, would propose, is a change to the way I described my experience at Per Se that would be acceptable to you?

u.e.

[Fat Guy]

You should go back and find out the names of the people who cooked each of your dishes, so you can be totally literal in your descriptions. Menus, for their parts, should list things like "Tonight on the saute station, Bill Smith, CIA '01."

[ulterior epicure]

You should go back and find out the names of the people who cooked each of your dishes, so you can be totally literal in your descriptions. Menus, for their parts, should list things like "Tonight on the saute station, Bill Smith, CIA '01."

←

Okay Fat Guy, I'm on it!!

u.e.

Warning: Restaurant reviews may be more than a year old after all of the proper research and citations have been made...

[robert40]

And please let us not forget......

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/talent/10027/

[ulterior epicure]

And please let us not forget......

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/talent/10027/

←

... Oh, to be sure, robert40, my reviews shall include a complete run-down on the crew who toss my scraps and wash my plates after the meal, lest I mislead my readers to think that I implied that Keller himself had sponged my plates and vacuum-dried my wine glasses at a $13/hour wage.

Edited April 16, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[Vadouvan]

NowI know why I never understood british humor.

[philadining]

Are you guys really that mystified by the point Vadouvan was making? Of course it's a convention to refer to the general direction and style of a restaurant by the chef's name, but u.e. referred to some very specific execution issues, which the phrasing implied could be credited to, or blamed on, Keller himself.

I think we might (maybe...) agree that it would be ludicrous to say that Keller left a big greasy thumbprint on the edge of the plate or to rave that the delicacy of a particular brunoise shows Keller's knife mastery, especially if one happens to know that Keller's not in the house.

I don't know exactly where the line might be, but it strikes me that there's a certain point at which comments about a chef's cuisine in the general sense, and the specific thing that's on one's plate, need to be phrased differently, particularly in the case where one can be pretty sure that the chef didn't cook it.

It's not exactly a huge crisis, but it's not such a crazy thing to suggest that one try to be accurate when it's easy....

Nobody's suggesting that you need to credit the busboys in a review, but don't blame Keller for not keeping your water glass full.

[oakapple]

Are you guys really that mystified by the point Vadouvan was making? Of course it's a convention to refer to the general direction and style of a restaurant by the chef's name, but u.e. referred to some very specific execution issues, which the phrasing implied could be credited to, or blamed on, Keller himself.

←

I've just re-read U.E.'s review. All of the points laid at "Keller's" door were reasonable. Keller owns the design of the menu and its execution—regardless of whether he does these things himself or delegates them to others. Obviously, even when he is in the house, he is highly unlikely to have prepared your dinner himself, but if the execution is flawed, he is accountable.

[Fat Guy]

it would be ludicrous to say that Keller left a big greasy thumbprint on the edge of the plate

←

Can a straw man make a thumbprint?

[ulterior epicure]

it would be ludicrous to say that Keller left a big greasy thumbprint on the edge of the plate

←

Can a straw man make a thumbprint?

[MissAmy]

Now, I am coming into this WAY late. However, I'm a little suprised there are people who assume the executive chef is cooking all the food all the time, and take issue with the EC's name being used in reviews whether or not he cooked the food. I don't know a single exec. chef who actually spends the majority of their time at work cooking. I'm sure there are some, of course, I've just never met one. It's not that they don't want to, it's that they have no TIME to. They are always in the office, doing office-y things, making the operation run smoothly. I even met one chef recently who said to me, "I really miss being in the kitchen cooking. I never get to cook anymore." And she said it with a certain wistfullness. Yet, her name is always mentioned in reviews and no one takes umbrage. It's just the way it is.

[philadining]

I've just re-read U.E.'s review. All of the points laid at "Keller's" door were reasonable. Keller owns the design of the menu and its execution—regardless of whether he does these things himself or delegates them to others.

←

I'm not complaining about the substance of the review, or with the idea of giving credit or blame to Thomas Keller for the construction of the menu. And BTW, it was a nice write-up, I liked the descriptions of the food and the overall experience, thanks for doing it u.e. really!

But it's written like a play by play, Keller did this Keller did that, Keller slipped here, next he redeemed himself... Sure, this might be a common literary conceit, but it absolutely gives the impression that the specific person was doing these things in real time. And that's not a great crime, but it's easy enough to refer to "the kitchen" or Benno, or whomever, just for the sake of giving a more accurate picture of what happened.

I can't speak for Vadouvan, but from his posts I read his point to be that we all ought to be more careful about such things. I agree with him. As we've seen, we as a group apparently disagree about how important it is to be literal in such accounts. And that's fine, but I'm not sure we need to mock the concept by implying that the suggestion was to credit sautée guy#3.

(edited to clarify)

Edited April 17, 2006 by philadining (log)

[ulterior epicure]

They are always in the office, doing office-y things, making the operation run smoothly. I even met one chef recently who said to me, "I really miss being in the kitchen cooking. I never get to cook anymore." And she said it with a certain wistfullness. Yet, her name is always mentioned in reviews and no one takes umbrage. It's just the way it is.

To be sure, many EC's are more administrative figure-heads; spokespersons for their enterprise. However:

1. Don't you think that the EC would have at least "signed off" on the food they are serving - at least having eaten it - especially at an establishment as well-regarded as Per Se? If so, then perhaps Keller likes his sausages well-cased, and I just differ in approach? Maybe my day was an "off-weiner day.

2. From what I've read about Keller, it doesn't seem like he's the type of EC to be "always in the office, doing office-y things..." ... and I won't attempt to speak for Keller or the staff of Per Se on this issue.

u.e.

Edited April 17, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[rich]

Now, I am coming into this WAY late. However, I'm a little suprised there are people who assume the executive chef is cooking all the food all the time, and take issue with the EC's name being used in reviews whether or not he cooked the food. I don't know a single exec. chef who actually spends the majority of their time at work cooking. I'm sure there are some, of course, I've just never met one. It's not that they don't want to, it's that they have no TIME to. They are always in the office, doing office-y things, making the operation run smoothly. I even met one chef recently who said to me, "I really miss being in the kitchen cooking. I never get to cook anymore." And she said it with a certain wistfullness. Yet, her name is always mentioned in reviews and no one takes umbrage. It's just the way it is.

←

And add to that, when the EC is also a CC it multiplies exponentially based on stardom because of other commitments. That's the bad part about becoming a top chef - you never get to cook. But Wylie's still hanging tough.

Edited April 17, 2006 by rich (log)

[MissAmy]

1. Don't you think that the EC would have at least "signed off" on the food they are serving - at least having eaten it - especially at an establishment as well-regarded as Per Se?  If so, then perhaps Keller likes his sausages well-cased, and I just differ in approach?  Maybe my day was an "off-weiner day.

Of course they have typically signed off on the dishes, and of course tasted them, but the hourly-paid cooks cook them. And sometimes cooks have off days. Not that that is an excuse, particularlly at an establishment like Per Se, but it does happen. It could have been that they were trying out a new casing, or the other casings didn't come in from the supplier, or the supplier got the casing order wrong. Whatever the reason for the tough casings, I'm willing to bet it was an anomaly, and not what Keller himself would have used. Of course, I could be wrong.

2. From what I've read about Keller, it doesn't seem like he's the type of EC to be "always in the office, doing office-y things..." ... and I won't attempt to speak for Keller or the staff of Per Se on this issue.

u.e.

←

I think there are very few EC's who appear to the public to always be in the office. A lot of this business is about perception.

[MissAmy]

And add to that, when the EC is also a CC it multiplies exponentially based on stardom because of other commitments. That's the bad part about becoming a top chef - you never get to cook. But Wylie's still hanging tough.

←

Exactly. For example, I wonder when the last time was that Tony Bourdain was behind the stove at Les Halles?

One guy I worked for hadn't actually cooked in his kitchen once in FIVE YEARS. Yet, there is a cookbook, there are reviews in travel and leisure magazines and they all say, "This Guy heads up the kitchen at XXX. This Guy's dishes are exceptional and the execution of This Guy's cuisine is blah blah blah." He created the recipes, we worked out the kinks in them and made them.

It like, when you reach the pinacle of your career, you no longer do what it was you set out doing. It is one of those weird dichotomies.

[oakapple]

And add to that, when the EC is also a CC it multiplies exponentially based on  stardom because of other commitments. That's the bad part about becoming a top chef - you never get to cook. But Wylie's still hanging tough.

←

There's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that Keller is, in fact, at The French Laundry or the Per Se the vast majority of the time. Comparisons to guys like Anthony Bourdain or Bobby Flay are really inapt.

Generalizing a bit, I think that any of the chefs that have four stars from the NY Times devote a considerable amount of time to their flagship restaurants.