Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[rich]

Admin: 2005 "Bruni and Beyond" discussion may be found here.

So Babbo is a four-star restaurant, but because hard rock music was playing it lost a star.

Is the converse true? If a restaurant has three-star food but plays music the reviewer thoroughly enjoys, does it get elevated to four stars?

I think the reasoning behind Babbo losing a star because of music could be the most ludicrous I've ever heard - hard rock or not.

[gmi3804]

So Babbo is a four-star restaurant, but because hard rock music was playing it lost a star.

Is the converse true? If a restaurant has three-star food but plays music the reviewer thoroughly enjoys, does it get elevated to four stars?

I think the reasoning behind Babbo losing a star because of music could be the most ludicrous I've ever heard - hard rock or not.

I think Bruni's point was that the food is near-perfect, but the atmosphere (including, but not limited to, the music) is not four-star level; he cites (in addition to the music) the crowd downstairs and the hectic pace of the table-turning. He writes:

This slightly ragtag quality is Babbo's limitation, not because it bucks classic formality, which matters less than ever, but because it undercuts the kind of coddling that restaurants can also provide.

They can muster a style of theater and degree of pampering that make more universally appealing sense than the sounds and scrum of Babbo. They can be easier on the ears and elbows.

We all know that a four-star restaurant experience is not just about the food.

[oakapple]

So Babbo is a four-star restaurant, but because hard rock music was playing it lost a star.

The Times's website says, "Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration." This isn't new. Since the days of Craig Claiborne, a restaurant has had to excel in all departments, not just the food, to earn four stars.

Furthermore, he says the loudness of the music is emblematic of the problems that deny Babbo the fourth star. Bruni says:

On the first of my recent visits to Babbo, what thundered — and I do mean thundered — from the sound system was relatively hard rock.

... ... ... ...

The tables are wedged tightly into the first two stories of a Greenwich Village town house, and on the ground floor, a dense crowd often fills the bar area, just inside the entrance. It's a daunting gantlet that diners must penetrate, and it stays in the sightlines of many people eating downstairs.

Even the upstairs can feel frenetic, given the tongue-twisting velocity with which waiters recite specials, the breakneck speed with which they reset the turning tables.

This slightly ragtag quality is Babbo's limitation, not because it bucks classic formality, which matters less than ever, but because it undercuts the kind of coddling that restaurants can also provide.

No restaurant has ever earned four stars from the Times given comments such as these - and I note that no one so far has disputed that they are accurate. Now, you might not like this reviewing standard, but it has been the standard for a long time. Bruni is writing for the Times, and must follow their system.

If a restaurant has three-star food but plays music the reviewer thoroughly enjoys, does it get elevated to four stars?

No, because a four-star restaurant must be extraordinary in all dimensions.

Edited June 9, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[slkinsey]

I think the reasoning behind Babbo losing a star because of music could be the most ludicrous I've ever heard - hard rock or not.

Babbo didn't lose a star. It was always three stars.

I have commented elsewhere on the star system as it relates to the quality of the food:

The assumption behind [awarding a one star rating] is that the food is at least within the range of "one star quality."  There are plenty of unstarred places making food in the one star range that will not earn a star primarily due to reasons not having to do with the food (decor, location, service, etc.).  Similarly, one can understand that there are places that are perhaps making what one would judge "very good one star food" who will be bumped up to two stars based on decor, service, etc.  . . .  In my view, it goes a little something like this:

Things like service, decor, etc. will figure most prominently in those "judgment call" areas.

My chart doesn't include four stars, but you can imagine it over there on the right.

What I gathered from Bruni's review is that Babbo is producing food that falls in the overlap area between three and four stars -- arguably four-star calibre food -- but that the other related elements such as the noise level, the pace and tenor of service and the closeness of the tables combined to make a three-star rating more appropriate.

[vivin]

I more or less agree with the review. I have been to Babbo literally dozens of times and my opinion is that you get 4 star quality food at 3 star prices. Moreover, the quality is way more consistent than some of the other places such as Bouley (that can knock your socks off but more probably won't on a given day). Whether or not this is because of perceived compromises on the other aspects of the experience, I believe it is intentional and reflects Mario's personality and beliefs.

[rich]

Why not just eliminate the damn star system altogether? It causes more problems than it's worth anyway. (Wasn't it given as one of the reasons for a chef's suicide in France?) Just give the review and let the readers decide.

Next time I go to a "four-star" restaurant, I'm making sure I bring my hip-hop and rap CD's to replace the "dentist" music. I think all that good food just turns sour when I'm thinking of having my teeth drilled.

If anything should hasten the demise of the star system, then it should be music. Will they serve four, three or two star cuisine on the upcoming revival of American Bandstand?

[Pan]

Why not just eliminate the damn star system altogether? It causes more problems than it's worth anyway. (Wasn't it given as one of the reasons for a chef's suicide in France?)

No. He kept his 3 Michelin stars and killed himself shortly after finding out. If you've never known a depressive who committed suicide, you're lucky.

I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the star system when there's a critic who gives such clear explanations for his ratings as Bruni did in this review. I did get the distinct feeling that he would have given the restaurant four stars if the ambiance had been different. He certainly loved the food.

[gmi3804]

I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the star system when there's a critic who gives such clear explanations for his ratings as Bruni did in this review. I did get the distinct feeling that he would have given the restaurant four stars if the ambiance had been different. He certainly loved the food.

Based on my experiences at Babbo, I agree wholeheartedly with Bruni's review. I find Babbo to be a superlative three-star "experience" (taking everything into consideration).

Back to why I started this thread, I think Bruni is a wonderful critc and writer, based, as it were, on just this first review. I'm thrilled he's on board and will look forward to his next review. And I'll have a good resource for planning my next trip to NYC - as if eGullet weren't enough!

[rich]

I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the star system when there's a critic who gives such clear explanations for his ratings as Bruni did in this review. I did get the distinct feeling that he would have given the restaurant four stars if the ambiance had been different. He certainly loved the food.

But isn't that the inherent problem with the star system? Reviews in the same publication are often written by different people with different tastes. So, if Bruni was a fan of hard rock music (his first and most emphatic complaint) would he have given Babbo four stars?

Who knows, the NY Times may have a listed four-star restaurant that plays Brodway show tunes because some past reviewer loved that type of music and rated the restaurant accordingly.

Since reviews are always subjective, the star system makes little or no sense when different critics review a restaurant. On the other hand a simple text review is not affected by a change of critics. Afterall, mixed reviews (and differing opinions) are the name of the game. Hell, that's what makes horse racing.

[bloviatrix]

I don't understand why you assume that Bruni doesn't like loud rock music. Isn't possible that he just feels that rocking out on Led Zep isn't appropriate for a 4 star venue?

[Rachel Perlow]

I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the star system when there's a critic who gives such clear explanations for his ratings as Bruni did in this review. I did get the distinct feeling that he would have given the restaurant four stars if the ambiance had been different. He certainly loved the food.

But isn't that the inherent problem with the star system? Reviews in the same publication are often written by different people with different tastes. So, if Bruni was a fan of hard rock music (his first and most emphatic complaint) would he have given Babbo four stars?

No, because he also noted many other atmospheric issues, as others outlined above.

[oakapple]

But isn't that the inherent problem with the star system? Reviews in the same publication are often written by different people with different tastes

The stars merely summarize the reviewer's reaction. If you abolished the stars, you'd still have a body of work written by different critics, years apart, not necessarily consistent with any particular standard. If the stars are inconsistent, it's only because the reviews themselves are inconsistent.

So, if Bruni was a fan of hard rock music (his first and most emphatic complaint) would he have given Babbo four stars?

Read again, very carefully. Bruni gave a whole host of reasons for the three-star rating. Moreover, it was not merely the genre of music being played, but also the fact that he found it too loud. (He did not say that he dislikes rock music.)

If the Times did not assign stars, there would still be complaints that a restaurant review should confine itself to the food. This issue comes up every time a reviewer devotes part of the allotted space to non-food aspects of the overall experience.

Edited June 9, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Rachel Perlow]

My chart doesn't include four stars, but you can imagine it over there on the right.

One point on this, Sam. I can imagine the four star area to the right, but I believe it wouldn't have the overlapping subset, it would be clearly to the right of the three star food. To be four star, a restaurant should be four star in all categories. I think that if Babbo just had a more relaxed waiting area (i.e. didn't have tables reserved for walk-ins (maybe just keep the bar walk-in friendly), it would be 3 1/2 stars.

[rich]

I don't understand why you assume that Bruni doesn't like loud rock music. Isn't possible that he just feels that rocking out on Led Zep isn't appropriate for a 4 star venue?

Either way, it's the same point - it's his opinion. And if another reviewer had a different opinion about the music (either taste or "appropriatness") than the "stars" would change -either twinkle a little brighter or dimmer.

[Pan]

Since reviews are always subjective, the star system makes little or no sense when different critics review a restaurant. On the other hand a simple text review is not affected by a change of critics.

I don't follow you at all. The text review is as subjective as the star rating. Besides, at least he explained his reasoning. To my mind, you're being too critical of this new critic's first review.

[rich]

So, if Bruni was a fan of hard rock music (his first and most emphatic complaint) would he have given Babbo four stars?

Read again, very carefully. Bruni gave a whole host of reasons for the three-star rating. Moreover, it was not merely the genre of music being played, but also the fact that he found it too loud. (He did not say that he dislikes rock music.)

Read again carefully - I said his first and most emphatic complaint.

[oakapple]

Read again carefully - I said his first and most emphatic complaint.

But Bruni said it was emblematic of the reasons Babbo is not four stars. There is simply no support in the text for your assertion that:

...if another reviewer had a different opinion about the music (either taste or "appropriatness") than the "stars" would change.

Remember, Ruth Reichl gave it three stars also.

Edited June 9, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Since reviews are always subjective, the star system makes little or no sense when different critics review a restaurant. On the other hand a simple text review is not affected by a change of critics.

I don't follow you at all. The text review is as subjective as the star rating. Besides, at least he explained his reasoning. To my mind, you're being too critical of this new critic's first review.

Please don't misunderstand, I think the review was excellent. I think the "hard rock music" line was silly and was only included because the sillier star system forced Bruni to expalin himself.

Last week I criticized Amanda Hesser because she said should would "rather not" give Masa a star review because a new critic would be taking over "next week". Many people responded it was a great review because the NY Times should publish more reviews without stars. I explained it wasn't the star system I was defending, just that someone shouldn't pass the buck to the next reviewer.

Likewise, I'm not criticizing the star system because it's subjective (just as text reviews). I'm criticizing it because of the subjectivity of the DIFFERENT critics in the same publication, ie Reichel, Grimes, Asimov, Hesser, Bruni et al.

In simple terms what's a three-star to one of them, could be a four-star or two-star to another one of them. Therefore, throw away the stars the touque hats etc, etc. Just give the review, I'll figure it out.

[Pan]

Please don't misunderstand, I think the review was excellent. I think the "hard rock music" line was silly and was only included because the sillier star system forced Bruni to expalin himself.

Au contraire, nothing forced him to explain himself. He chose to explain himself.

Likewise, I'm not criticizing the star system because it's subjective (just as text reviews). I'm criticizing it because of the subjectivity of the DIFFERENT critics in the same publication, ie Reichel, Grimes, Asimov, Hesser, Bruni et al.

But that's inescapable. All reviews are subjective.

[rich]

Read again carefully - I said his first and most emphatic complaint.

But Bruni said it was emblematic of the reasons Babbo is not four stars. There is simply no support in the text for your assertion that:

...if another reviewer had a different opinion about the music (either taste or "appropriatness") than the "stars" would change.

Remember, Ruth Reichl gave it three stars also.

I was trying to save my typing fingers by not listing the other things he said. Bottom line, Bruni mentioned the music first and I used that as an example.

True Reichl gave it three, but did she think the food was four or three? Bruni thought the food was four (or so he suggested), did Reichl feel the ambiance lowered the rating or did she ignore that? But more importantly, two reviewers CAN have the same taste, but they might not have.

Again if you read carefully (as you suggested to me), then you will see I wrote "...IF another reviewer had a different opinion..."

I realize "if" has only two letters, but try not to ignore it - it's very important at times.

[gmi3804]

I realize "if" has only two letters, but try not to ignore it - it's very important at times.

...then Bruni should have used the word "iff," which means "if and only if."

[oakapple]

Again if you read carefully (as you suggested to me), then you will see I wrote "...IF another reviewer had a different opinion [about the music (either taste or "appropriateness"), then the "stars" would change]"

To which several of us have given you the very clear answer: "No, because Bruni quite lucidly explained that the three-star rating was not merely because of the type of music played, but for numerous factors, of which the loud music was emblematic."

If all (or nearly all) of those factors changed, then yes, Babbo might be a four-star restaurant. It would also not be the same place. Remember, it is not a bad thing to be rated three stars. Three stars, in the Times system, means "excellent." In this city of thousands of restaurant, there are only about 40 of these. It is rarefied territory.

Edited June 9, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Again if you read carefully (as you suggested to me), then you will see I wrote "...IF another reviewer had a different opinion [about the music (either taste or "appropriateness"), then the "stars" would change]"

To which several of us have given you the very clear answer: "No, because Bruni quite lucidly explained that the three-star rating was not merely because of the type of music played, but for numerous factors, of which the loud music was emblematic."

If all (or nearly all) of those factors changed, then yes, Babbo might be a four-star restaurant. It would also not be the same place. Remember, it is not a bad thing to be rated three stars. Three stars, in the Times system, means "excellent." In this city of thousands of restaurant, there are only about 40 of these. It is rarefied territory.

This comment is so off the wall, I'm not sure where to begin. The music was emblematic of an ambiance problem that caused Babbo to fall into the three-star category. If you accept that, then here is a simple point ot digest: IF BRUNI HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE AMBIANCE - HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT FOUR STARS BASED ON THE FOOD.

I think, ergo my opinion, that the star system creates inherent problems because of the subjectivity of many reviwers in one publication. If someone was a fan of hard rock and the more casual dining style - then Babbo is a four-star place to themb based on this review. Just eliminate the stars - then we have nothing to debate.

I couldn't care less if it was three, four of ten stars. Personally I enjoy Babbo, but it's far from the best Italian in the city, but it is the most adventurous.

Edited June 9, 2004 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

IF BRUNI HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE AMBIANCE - HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT FOUR STARS BASED ON THE FOOD.

I totally agree. However, this has always been the Times system, dating back to Craig Claiborne, and the Times clearly says on its website that the rating considers more than just the food.

Think of it this way: Bruni has done you a great favor. Because he clearly stated his criteria, you're left in no doubt that the food is four-star quality. If that's all you care about, you should be happy, because Bruni has spelled it out. If you care about the whole range of factors that Times reviewers traditionally consider, you should also be happy, because he followed the system corrrectly.

[slkinsey]

Again if you read carefully (as you suggested to me), then you will see I wrote "...IF another reviewer had a different opinion [about the music (either taste or "appropriateness"), then the "stars" would change]"

To which several of us have given you the very clear answer: "No, because Bruni quite lucidly explained that the three-star rating was not merely because of the type of music played, but for numerous factors, of which the loud music was emblematic."

If all (or nearly all) of those factors changed, then yes, Babbo might be a four-star restaurant. It would also not be the same place. Remember, it is not a bad thing to be rated three stars. Three stars, in the Times system, means "excellent." In this city of thousands of restaurant, there are only about 40 of these. It is rarefied territory.

This comment is so off the wall, I'm not sure where to begin. The music was emblematic of an ambiance problem that caused Babbo to fall into the three-star category. If you accept that, then here is a simple point ot digest: IF BRUNI HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE AMBIANCE - HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT FOUR STARS BASED ON THE FOOD.

Not necessarily. There is a difference between "had a problem with the ambiance" and "didn't feel that the ambiance was appropriate to a four-star restaurant." As oakapple suggests, Bruni found that there were several things that kept Babbo from earning four stars. These things seem to be largely not food-related, and I agree that a possible interpretation of Bruni's article is that Babbo is serving four star-worthy food. However, it is quite well established that there are factors other than simply the food itself that go into the rating. These factors all seemed to point in the direction of three stars rather than four and tipped the balance in that direction. So, yes, if the ambiance had been more appropriate for a four star restaurant, it is quite possible that Bruni would have awarded four stars. So what?

Whether or not Bruni liked the ambiance (which I assume is what you are getting at with "had a problem with") is immaterial. He might actually prefer the ambiance at Babbo over the ambiance at Daniel. However, in making his evaluation, he judged that the ambiance at Babbo was a distinctly "three star or lower" ambiance. To suggest that such evaluations are somehow inappropriate in making a rating is to turn the entire system on its head -- and this is not the thread for such a discussion.