When the Chef is not actually in the kitchen

[JMayer]

Hello,

I was wondering what people thought about "celebrity" chefs such as Keller not actually being present in the kitchens where their meals are cooked? It seems to me chefs such as Keller are happy to raise their prices, but where do you draw the line when the actual "man" is not in the kitchen? Many people can sing just as good as Frank Sinatra or Paul McCartney, but people will not pay $1000 to see Joe Blow sing Yesterday! If chefs are truly artisits should we not be tasting food at the hands of the master?

Food For thought,

Justin

[docsconz]

I think that in this case you could find out by reading the reviews (including my own) posted above. Per Se is about so much more than the physical presence of Thomas Keller. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved for him to have been there so I might have been able to meet him, but I doubt the food would have been any better or the restaurant a better value. The key is the overall experience.

[JMayer]

I am not denying that the food would have been any different. But what makes a Monet a "Monet", the fact that it was painted by Monet.

Edited June 2, 2004 by JMayer (log)

[Bux]

Hello,

I was wondering what people thought about "celebrity" chefs such as Keller not actually being present in the kitchens where their meals are cooked? It seems to me chefs such as Keller are happy to raise their prices, but where do you draw the line when the actual "man" is not in the kitchen? Many people can sing just as good as Frank Sinatra or Paul McCartney, but people will not pay $1000 to see Joe Blow sing Yesterday! If chefs are truly artisits should we not be tasting food at the hands of the master?

Food For thought,

Justin

You raise a lot of interesting issues, but you also make false analogies. (Is there another kind?) You don't really believe most of your food is actually cooked by the chef even when he's there. Food in a great restaurant comes not from the hands of a chef, but from the teamwork of a brigade of trained and talented cooks in most great restaurants. When you dine at a great restaurant, you're paying to see the chef perform, you're paying to eat the best possible food the restaurant can serve.

Should a famous singer be there when his songs are sung by someone else. Need a composer be on hand to better enjoy his music. During renaissance times, artists had pupils work on their canvases, yet these works are still held to be masterpieces. This is not a new concept or a revolutionary one.

In the end, you're paying for the food you eat. Some chefs need to be in the kitchen for their own reasons and some need to be in the kitchen because they can't manage to organize and trust a staff. I draw the line on the quality of the food I'm served. If it doesn't suffer when the chef is off for a charity event in South America, I have all the more respect for his talents. At some point a chef with more than one restaurant becomes more than just a chef. At the same time, he may, or may not, become less of a chef. None of that will mean the food has necessarily gotten better or worse.

[Pan]

Bux, I think the atelier analogy is questionable, because "School of" paintings are virtually never considered as great as paintings where the master himself did some of the work on the canvas. I think a better analogy is with a great composer who is also a great chamber music coach who picks the members of the ensemble and supervises them during rehearsals. If his conceptions are good, he's explained them well, and he's picked the players in the ensemble well, then there's a good change they'll perform his music expertly, whether he's there with them or not. Granted, this, too, is an imperfect analogy, as you would rightly point out, but I think it's a closer one.

[docsconz]

To some it may matter if the chef is there or not even if the food is no different (There certainly are times and restaurants in which it really does make a difference in quality), but then those people are not primarily interested in the food . In my mind, if the chef is good enough to organize and coax a superlative effort out of his staff in his absence, he has done an outstanding job. Ist it more fun and exciting when the star is present - absolutely. Does it always result in a better product - not necessarily.

As far as analogies, I think a better one is theater. The director organizes the show and has it perform to his or her vision. A good director with a talented staff and actors can have the show running well with or without the director's presence.

[JMayer]

However, is not the director present during the making of the film? (as a chef is present during the making of your meal, and when you recieve the dish it is your "play") Your analogy seems to support what I am trying to say. The director (chef) is present (or at least most of the time) during the making of a production also hundreds of people (i.e. kitchen staff) are also present supporting him in his or her vision to produce a grand production.

Edited June 2, 2004 by JMayer (log)

[oakapple]

Many people can sing just as good as Frank Sinatra or Paul McCartney, but people will not pay $1000 to see Joe Blow sing Yesterday!

This is a really poor analogy. I don't agree with Bux that all analogies are false, but this one surely is. The executive chef is a designer whose work is replicated many times over by those working under his direction. Even at restaurants where the chef is physically present every day, he usually does not cook every dish himself - the way that Frank Sinatra would sing every song at one of his concerts. If you must have an analogy, think of designer clothing. If you buy a suit by a famous designer, it does not mean that the designer personally sewed the garment together, or that he even saw it. It only means that it was executed according to his design.

Of course, whether in restaurants or in clothing, quality requires not just a great design, but also top-notch management to ensure that the production line actually delivers what the artist intended. Thomas Keller has gone so far as to install a live video link between the kitchens in his two restaurants, so that he can keep tabs on one while residing at the other. I don't think any other peripatetic chef has done as much to ensure his quality standards are upheld even when he is not physically present.

Edited June 2, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[JMayer]

the way that Frank Sinatra would sing every song at one of his concerts

Ah! But did not Mr Sinatra have a backing band.

Edited June 2, 2004 by JMayer (log)

[bilrus]

Could the idea of being disappointed at not having the 'celebrity chef' in the kitchen be an indictment of the idea of the 'celebrity chef'?

[slkinsey]

As far as analogies, I think a better one is theater. The director organizes the show and has it perform to his or her vision. A good director with a talented staff and actors can have the show running well with or without the director's presence.

An even better analogy would be opera direction. The Metropolitan Opera, for example, has a production of La bohème "directed by Franco Zeffirelli." They present this production just about every year, and have been doing so since the premiere of this production over 20 years ago.

Now, what does this mean when they say "production: Franco Zeffirelli?" Does it mean that he shows up at the Met every season to direct every new cast? Of course not. That task is left to the staff assistant directors who direct the new casts from notes. Many times, the staging will begin to diverge from the original over time. Sometimes, if there is an important cast or a series of noteworthy performances, Zeffirelli might come back and work with the cast. In general, the "director" conceives the staging, trains the staff assistant directors and that's that. Anyone who goes to La bohème at the Met expecting to see singers who have recieved personal direction in their roles from Franco Zeffirelli because his name is in the program doesn't understand how opera works at this level.

Similarly, Keller conceives the dishes at Per Se, he hires and trains the staff in the execution of his dishes, he hires and trains the chef de cuisine in his culinary and management philosophies to oversee the kitchen, and he returns to the kitchen on a regular basis to oversee and tweak same. One who eats the "oysters and pearls" at Per Se during a time when Keller happens to be in California is still getting "Keller's cuisine" -- and to a much fuller extent that one get's "Zeffirelli's bohème staging" at the Met. Indeed, if Per Se's chef de cuisine Jonathan Benno comes up with a dish for Per Se all on his own, I'd still call that "Keller's cuisine" because Benno's job is to conceive and execute dishes according to Keller's philosophies.

[Bux]

However, is not the director present during the making of the film? (as a chef is present during the making of your meal, and when you recieve the dish it is your "play") Your analogy seems to support what I am trying to say. The director (chef) is present (or at least most of the time) during the making of a production also hundreds of people (i.e. kitchen staff) are also present supporting him in his or her vision to produce a grand production.

Where are the analogy police when you need them? I would think a live meal in a restaurant would compare better to a live theatrical performance than to the cinema. In either case, the director's presence during your performance is not necessary and you should not necessarily be aware of whether he's in the house or not once he's instructed the staff and set the standard for performance.

In the case of the presence of a chef in a restaurant at the time you are eating, it matters if you care and it doesn't matter if you don't. What be interesting would be to know why you care. Would you prefer to have the chef present the night you're having dinner, or would you prefer to have the best meal the kitchen has ever sent out. Let's assume the two are not neccessarily going to happen on the same night. Which night would you prefer to be at the restaurant? If, of course, you believe the food is always going to be better when the chef is in residence then the question is not about his presence, but about the quality of the food. I don't believe the chef need be there for the food to be at its best--at least not in all restaurants and my dining experience had borne this out. I would caution that each restaurant operates under different constrictions and need be approached on its own in this regard and that a general attitude would not serve well.

[JMayer]

Hello,

I think people are not understanding what I am saying. Maybe my analogies are bad, however, if there is one thing I have learned in life it is that any analogy can be contradicted. I totally understand that Mr Keller's presence does not make a difference in how the food tastes. What I am trying to point out is the "potential" (and already) alarming trend of "celebrity" chefs attaching their names to restaurants and then not being there to take accountablity for both the restaurants sucesses and failures. Mr Keller is already victim to this, his restaurant in Las Vegas was disappointing, and I realize that this is not supposed to be the real Keller experience but nevertheless his name is involved in the place. My analogies were meant to point out how absurd it would be to go see (and pay top dollar) a Paul McCartney concert and not see him perform. Why is it not absurd then to pay upwards of a $1000 dollars for a meal at Per Se for two people (top dollar last I checked!) and not have the creator on hand? Maybe it comes down to what you value as a consumer. One of my favorite restaurants (Tallgrass) may not have a $65,000 stove and in army of service staff, but indeed the same chef has been in the kitchen for 16 years cooking and overseeing the staff. And I could really care about "celebrity" chefs, I admire a chef for his skill and creative drive. If the food is great and the service and ambience are welcoming I am there! I like Mr Keller, I think he has done a lot for the American culinary scene, however, I just hope he does not start opening up restaurants in which the chefs pop in Keller microwave meals and serve them to the diners (this is going a little bit overboard :)) I look forward to hearing what people have to say. Thanks!

Sincerely,

Justin

Edited June 3, 2004 by JMayer (log)

[rose and antojitos]

JMayer you're right about the Bouchon Restaurants not aspiring to offer the same type of experience as The French Laundry and Per Se. While Keller is the chef at TFL and Per Se, he is not at the Bouchons. I think most foodies realize that for Keller's food, they must go to TFL or Per Se. And I believe that it is Keller's food whether or not he is on the property when it is being served. He pretty much is dividing his time between the two kitchens to insure this. In fact, Keller seems to be one the only chefs of "celebrity" status that actually still works in a kitchen on a regulat basis. For that we should ecstatic.

[JMayer]

I think most foodies realize that for Keller's food, they must go to TFL or Per Se. And I believe that it is Keller's food whether or not he is on the property when it is being served. He pretty much is dividing his time between the two kitchens to insure this. In fact, Keller seems to be one the only chefs of "celebrity" status that actually still works in a kitchen on a regulat basis. For that we should ecstatic.

Thats why I have been careful not to write off Mr Keller. However, I still feel thay he may be entering a grey area. I am just concerned that pretty soon the young crop of aspiring chefs will all want to be "celebrities" and we the diner will end up with "generic" experiences.

[Bux]

JMayer, perhaps you've hit the nail on the head in your last post without realizing it. I would not happily pay as much to dine at Keller's restaurant in Las Vegas (didn't even realize he had one) or at Bouchon in Yountville (Is his LV restaurant a branch of his bistro in Yountville? If so, it isn't pretending to be a chef driven restaurant at all.) as I would at the French Laundry or Per Se. I would go so far to say that I would not pay as much even if I knew Keller was at one of the first two and not at either of his top two restaurants.

I don't know your favorite restaurant or its chef so neither you nor he should take what I say in this regard as personal, but I know guys who are third in command in restaurants such as Per Se and the French Laundry and who could cook circles around 99% of the chefs in this country with their eyes closed and one hand tied behind their back. The exectutive chef, chef de partie, sous chef or whatever the hell a chef/owner wants to call his man in charge of the actual kitchen on a day to day basis in a top kitchen in NY such as AD/NY, Per Se, Daniel, etc. is far more talented than you can imagine and he's got $65,000 stoves and a brigade of talented people working under him. Some of those talented people are breaking their balls not for the meager salary, but for a recommendation or that chance to stage in France that can only come from pleasing a guy like Boulud or Keller, while most restaurants are making do at the lower levels with whoever they can hire at minimal wages. There are few restaurants who can command that kind of discipline from the bottom of the kitchen. Some of my best meals at Daniel in NY have come on days the chef is out of town. Why, because the entire staff knows that when Daniel returns, he will hear every complaint from every regular customer and the shit will fly from the exectutive chef downwards. I use Daniel as an example only because I used to know when he was in town.

Plenty of fools go to celebrity chef restaurants for the chef, but gastronomes go for the food and yes, I'd say those who appreciate food are going to go to the best restaurants regardless of where the "chef" is, because in many celebrity chef restaurants, the "chef" is not the chef and that's understood by the people who understand.

PS. I've googled Las Vegas and Bouchon and see that indeed Keller's "restaurant in Las Vegas" is a Bouchon. The hotel web site itself makes no bones about the fact that this is Keller's take on a Lyon bistro, and not his gastronomic restaurant. One must understand the difference to be an educated diner. In Yountville, where the original Bouchon exists practically in the shadow of the French Laundry, no one expects to get the same food at both, nor pay the same prices. My apologies for the length of my reply. Had I realized you were somehow implying Per Se and Bouchon were equally trading on the Keller name, I might have been able to dismiss that implication quicker.

[Bicycle Lee]

I think that if you want your reputation to be reflected in food, you have to cook it. It cannot just be YOUR guidelines that someone else (no matter how competent) is following IMO.

[hathor]

I am just concerned that pretty soon the young crop of aspiring chefs will all want to be "celebrities" and we the diner will end up with "generic" experiences.

Turning out consistently beautiful and tasty food at any restaurant involves teamwork. I would expect the chef, celebrity or not, to train his staff to execute his vision. Although it might be somewhat titillating to have a 'celebrity' cook for you, the real issue is the overall experience, which again relies on the team that has been built.

Given our celebrity driven culture, of course young chefs want to be stars. But the discrimminating diners will naturally cull out the 'generic' experiences. And those diners that may not be so confident in their taste will welcome the affirmation that comes with choosing a 'celebrity' chef.

[oakapple]

I think that if you want your reputation to be reflected in food, you have to cook it. It cannot just be YOUR guidelines that someone else (no matter how competent) is following IMO.

Thes comment might resonate with me if you can actually demonstrate to us that you can tell the difference. As others have noted here, even when the chef is physically present, he does not personally execute each and every dish, for each and every customer. Any chef who does must be operating on an extremely small scale, because there's only so much that a single human being can do.

Again, at the risk of over-burdening us with analogies, there is never any doubt when Frank Sinatra or Paul McCartney is singing. But can you tell me that you've gone to any restaurant, and from the taste alone, inferred with confidence exactly who cooked it? If so, please enlighten us how you did that.

JMayer wrote:

I totally understand that Mr Keller's presence does not make a difference in how the food tastes. What I am trying to point out is the "potential" (and already) alarming trend of "celebrity" chefs attaching their names to restaurants and then not being there to take accountablity for both the restaurants sucesses and failures.

This is a valid point, although eventually the market will punish those who over-extend themselves. At the moment, practically every reviewer in a position to judge says that Per Se is operating at the same level as The French Laundry, or perhaps even higher.

Why is it not absurd then to pay upwards of a $1000 dollars for a meal at Per Se for two people (top dollar last I checked!) and not have the creator on hand?

It's absurd only if you can demonstrate that it actually makes a difference. BTW, at current prices, anyone who paid $1000 for two at Per Se would have had to spend a majority of that on beverages. Keller isn't the sommelier, even when he's present.

[bbq4meanytime]

Why all this defense of absentee-chefs? I think its a matter of perspective: some people expect the chef to have a physical hand in the preparation of their meal, some apparently don't care. I think that if the price of dinner reflects, at least to some degree, the chef's name and reputation, then the chef should have some direct role in its preparation. If pricing is not a factor, then I don't care who cooks my food as long as it lives up to the restaurant's reputation.

On a side note, we once dined at an "acclaimed chef's" restaurant and the food was sub-par. The chef normally is in the kitchen along side his crew but was not that evening. A friend suggested that perhaps that was the reason for our disappointment but I disagreed - food quality shouldn't matter at a restaurant of that caliber merely because the chef took a night off.

[hathor]

Why all this defense of absentee-chefs? I think its a matter of perspective: some people expect the chef to have a physical hand in the preparation of their meal, some apparently don't care. I think that if the price of dinner reflects, at least to some degree, the chef's name and reputation, then the chef should have some direct role in its preparation. If pricing is not a factor, then I don't care who cooks my food as long as it lives up to the restaurant's reputation.

On a side note, we once dined at an "acclaimed chef's" restaurant and the food was sub-par. The chef normally is in the kitchen along side his crew but was not that evening. A friend suggested that perhaps that was the reason for our disappointment but I disagreed - food quality shouldn't matter at a restaurant of that caliber merely because the chef took a night off.

It's not that I don't care... I do care and I do fully expect the chef to have completely trained the staff to execute his/her vision. I do expect that the chef has had a direct hand in the creation of the dishes on the menu.

Armani doesn't stitch every dress...but I do expect his influence in the quality and design. ( I know.. I know...an analogy....).

[JMayer]

PS. I've googled Las Vegas and Bouchon and see that indeed Keller's "restaurant in Las Vegas" is a Bouchon. The hotel web site itself makes no bones about the fact that this is Keller's take on a Lyon bistro, and not his gastronomic restaurant. One must understand the difference to be an educated diner. In Yountville, where the original Bouchon exists practically in the shadow of the French Laundry, no one expects to get the same food at both, nor pay the same prices. My apologies for the length of my reply. Had I realized you were somehow implying Per Se and Bouchon were equally trading on the Keller name, I might have been able to dismiss that implication quicker.

"Mr Keller is already victim to this, his restaurant in Las Vegas was disappointing, and I realize that this is not supposed to be the real Keller experience but nevertheless his name is involved in the place." (This is what I wrote previoulsy)

Bux I have no problem with you critcizing me, but please read my posts carefully before making pointed remarks. Thomas Kellers name is involved with the restaurant, I and many other people have been disappointed by the epxerience. I was not expecting FL or Per Se, just a good meal.

Edited June 3, 2004 by JMayer (log)

[oakapple]

Why all this defense of absentee-chefs?

It's not so much a defense. More like: "How can you tell the difference?" Many of the comments here suggests an emotional/visceral reaction that smells more like resentment than analysis. "I'm eating in Thomas Keller's restaurant, therefore I'm being cheated unless he cooks every dish for me personally." Even when he had only one restaurant, it didn't work that way.

Edited June 3, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Pan]

Thomas Kellers name is involved with the restaurant, I and many other people have been disappointed by the epxerience. I was not expecting FL or Per Se, just a good meal.

Sorry you had a less than good meal. Just out of curiosity, did you pay a lot for the meal?

[JMayer]

Thomas Kellers name is involved with the restaurant, I and many other people have been disappointed by the epxerience. I was not expecting FL or Per Se, just a good meal.

Sorry you had a less than good meal. Just out of curiosity, did you pay a lot for the meal?

As I recall for two it was around $150, but I don't remember the exact figure. Not Per Se figures, but not cheap.