Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[rich]

Rich, it's not merely the type of music, but that there's music AT ALL. My favorite place, which has bounced between 4 and 3 stars, is a beautifully spare room, save one major decorative piece at one end. The tables are well spaced, and of just the right size: neither so small as to be covered when all the food arrives, nor too large to prevent engaging in a bit of kneesies if the mood strikes (discretely hidden under the tablecloth, of course). The service is well informed and discreet. And there is no music whatsoever.  Music is a distraction from food, an obstacle to conversation. Even if they played something I normally enjoyed, I would be unhappy.

I'm not disagreeing with the rating. Personally, it doesn't matter. Babbo is very nice and very adventuresome - nothing more, nothing less. I just think the star rating system is archaic. When Bruni used the music et al to say that's the main reason for the place not getting four stars, he entered into the arena of explaining how the the NY Times star system works or more importantly doesn't.

In today's society, it seems that food is far more important than ambiance and I don't believe as many people are looking for the jacket and tie place to have top quality food. It may serve the Times to study their star system, especially as it relates to ambiance because that's even more subjective than any one critic's view of food.

Right now the NY Times has stars awarded to restaurants from no less than six different critics (maybe more). How can anyone determine what subjective concepts were in play when these stars were determined? You can't, it's difficult enough with one critic, it's impossible with several.

So if you're eating a three-star NY Times restaurant you may never be sure if it received four stars for the food and three for the ambiance or three stars for the food and four for the ambiance (or three for both). At least Bruni suggested the former for Babbo.

I would totally eliminate the star system, but the NY Times probably won't be that drastic. One suggestion would be to go the Zagat route and award a food rating and an ambiance rating that's EMBLEMATIC of the total experience.

The music was simply the vehicle Bruni used and that I picked upon. When I dined at ADNY and Per Se, there were things I thought garish and could have found fault with, but they didn't affect the way I felt about the food or restaurant as a whole.

I firmly believe that because of the way we live today, you can have a so-called "four-star" experience at a place that plays hard rock, classical or no music at all - it's in the eye of the beholder.

Just remember if ambiance played a major role, the "beloved" (not by me) Luger's would probably be lucky to get one star.

Edited June 10, 2004 by rich (log)

[rich]

Just a quick follow-up question.

Does anyone believe the current NY Times star system is relevant in today's more casual society?

[slkinsey]

One thing I think it's important to understand -- and the Times is somewhat guilty of perpetuating the wrong idea -- is that a rating is not fundamentally a measure of how "good" a restaurant is. Rather, it is an indication of the style the restaurant is aiming for and the extent to which it meets those goals. Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book. But the difference in the style and goals of the two restaurants is nicely indicated by the difference in ratings. The fact is that Babbo might not be a "better" restaurant if Batali made the changes necessary for a four star rating (indeed, it might be worse in some respects) -- but it would be a different restaurant.

Do I think this information is still relevant today? Sure. The Times has also changed some of its ideas about what constitutes how many stars as restaurant culture has changed.

[Fat Guy]

Just because society is more casual doesn't mean we live in undifferentiated casualness every moment of the day. Fine dining is still a special occasion. People don't dress up for it to the extent they used to, but it's still very much about being pampered -- it's just that today we prefer to be pampered in different ways. Luxury is still alive and well at the high end of the restaurant business -- it's just that today we have more of a low-key expectation luxury.

Moreover, while I'm hearing a lot of "Babbo has four star food in a three star environment" I am resoundingly unconvinced that Babbo serves four star food. Babbo serves outstanding food, but I think it is three star food through and through. Just as the four star ambience has an edge of luxury and formality to it, so does four star food. Babbo's cuisine is fundamentally rustic, without the refinement of the four star restaurants. Even from a kitchen-mechanics perspective, Babbo's food lacks the kind of effort and discipline that is reflected on a plate at ADNY, Per Se, Jean-Georges, Le Bernardin, or Daniel on a good day. Which is not to say Babbo would be better were it to go in that direction. I think Babbo is pretty much the peak logical expression of Batali's style of food. I love it but would never give it four stars.

Ultimately, I agree that the star system is problematic. I would be in favor of doing away with it. But it is not entirely valueless. It is, at least, always interesting to discuss.

[Pan]

Sam, I think most non-eGulleteers wouldn't understand things that way. They'd think that, as far as the Times is concerned, the 4-star restaurants are the best - and in fact, that's the way the Times itself defines the ratings.

[Pan]

Fat Guy, I noticed Bouley conspicuously missing from your 4-star list. Do you think they are at much risk of losing their 4th star from Bruni in the future? My guess is that all concerned will make sure Bruni has a 4-star experience when he goes there - which is not to mean that others can count on such an experience.

Edited June 10, 2004 by Pan (log)

[sammy]

Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book.

On what basis is Jean-George not a "better" restaurant than Babbo?

I could understand you saying that you enjoy a Babbo type meal more than a Jean-George type meal but I don't see how you can say that Jean-George isn't a better restaurant than Babbo.

[slkinsey]

Moreover, while I'm hearing a lot of "Babbo has four star food in a three star environment" I am resoundingly unconvinced that Babbo serves four star food. Babbo serves outstanding food, but I think it is three star food through and through. Just as the four star ambience has an edge of luxury and formality to it, so does four star food. Babbo's cuisine is fundamentally rustic, without the refinement of the four star restaurants. Even from a kitchen-mechanics perspective, Babbo's food lacks the kind of effort and discipline that is reflected on a plate at ADNY, Per Se, Jean-Georges, Le Bernardin, or Daniel on a good day. Which is not to say Babbo would be better were it to go in that direction. I think Babbo is pretty much the peak logical expression of Batali's style of food. I love it but would never give it four stars.

I tend to agree with this, but I am mostly going on what Bruni seemed to imply in his review -- which did give the impression that he thought it was 4 star food (if perhaps not the pinnacle of four star food) in a three star environment.

Part of what has historically made food like Batali's seem more "three star" than "four star" has been the less composed presentation, etc. The kinds of refinements you are talking about strike me as things which are fundamentally part of the neo-French restaurant tradition. You won't, for example, find an Italian restaurant making sure that every matchstick of leek is exactly .05 mm wide and 2.3 cm long, nor will you find the dish plated in a carefully composed, quasi-architectural way. That's not the Italian aesthetic. I have heard Batali remark upon occasion things like: "you want the food to appear natural, as though it slid out of the pan onto your plate in a particularly felicitous way" and "the Italian aesthetic would enjoy the capriciousness of having the leek matchsticks in slightly different shapes and sizes." This doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of effort, discipline and refinement to me, but rather an aesthetic that is fundamentally at odds with the more tightly controlled neo-French model.

If stars are going to be awarded according to the strict neo-French model, then it is impossible for a restaurant operating under the Italian aesthetic to achieve four stars. When Bruni said this...

At present, five restaurants in New York City have four stars from The Times. All are French in pedigree or predilection, and that rightly prompts notice as well as debate, at least around the tables where restaurant lovers huddle and feast.

Can the list be complete without Japanese restaurants, so wildly in vogue? Will it ever accommodate Italian restaurants, so many and beloved? Why not Babbo?

To the last question, there is a short, emblematic answer: the music.

...it led me to infer that he was indicating he might depart from the strict neo-French model as a basis for awarding stars. A reasonable conclusion from the text above is also that he found the food worthy of four stars.

[slkinsey]

Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book.

On what basis is Jean-George not a "better" restaurant than Babbo?

I could understand you saying that you enjoy a Babbo type meal more than a Jean-George type meal but I don't see how you can say that Jean-George isn't a better restaurant than Babbo.

On what basis would you say that Jean-Georges is better? Does the food taste better there? Is the decor and service intrinsically "better" or "better" according to a certain paradigm? What is the scale on which you are measuring them? Why and in what way does this scale apply to other people?

I would say that Jean-George is "different" from Babbo, and is (deservedly) higher on a certain kind of quasi-arbitrary scale. But that does not equal "better" in an absolute sense. Part of what we have to understand is that this "better" idea many of us share is an entirely artificial distinction.

[tommy]

i think that a cold and unfriendly host is enough to keep a fourth star away from any restaurant.

i can deal with music, however.

Edited June 10, 2004 by tommy (log)

[sammy]

On what basis would you say that Jean-Georges is better? Does the food taste better there? Is the decor and service intrinsically "better" or "better" according to a certain paradigm? What is the scale on which you are measuring them?

I am in no way attempting to denigrate Babbo. It is a terrific restaurant with usually excellent food and sometimes excellent service. It does what Batali wants it to do. But it is objectively not as good as Jean George so it has fewer stars.

Which restaurant do you believe has higher quality ingredients?

Which restaurant consistently offers better service?

Which restaurant is in a nicer setting?

Yes, I believe Jean-George has decor and service intrinsically "better" than Babbo.

Ever feel rushed at Babbo? Cramped at Babbo? At Jean-George?

To me, the answers to these questions are objective, not subjective and not in any way arbitrary.

Probably a discussion for another thread at another time.

Edited June 10, 2004 by sammy (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Babbo and JG are two totally different experiences, like night and day.

"Better" isn't applicable here.

Soba

[sammy]

Babbo and JG are two totally different experiences, like night and day.

"Better" isn't applicable here.

Soba

Viewing The Godfather is a totally experience than viewing Gigli, like night and day.

"Better" isn't applicable here.

How silly does that sound.

[SobaAddict70]

It is what it is.

Silly to you perhaps, but not to others.

Babbo isn't trying to be JG. It's a casual place, serving top-notch Italian oriented cuisine in a casual setting.

Saying JG is "better" than Babbo completely misses the point, imo.

YMMV.

Soba

[mongo_jones]

Which restaurant do you believe has higher quality ingredients?

Which restaurant consistently offers better service?

Which restaurant is in a nicer setting?

Yes, I believe Jean-George has decor and service intrinsically "better" than Babbo.

Ever feel rushed at Babbo? Cramped at Babbo?  At Jean-George?

To me, the answers to these questions are objective, not subjective and not in any way arbitrary.

Probably a discussion for another thread at another time.

most of these are in fact questions with subjective answers. the only one that might not be is the first (though i have a tough time believing batali is shopping at costco).

as for the godfather/gigli comparison, that isn't a fair analogy. instead let's compare "the godfather" and say, "the apartment"--both top-notch representatives of their respective genres. would you say these are not both 5 star films?

(edit to add the last question)

Edited June 10, 2004 by mongo_jones (log)

[slkinsey]

Babbo and JG are two totally different experiences, like night and day.

"Better" isn't applicable here.

Soba

Viewing The Godfather is a totally experience than viewing Gigli, like night and day.

"Better" isn't applicable here.

How silly does that sound.

It sounds like you're making a strawman argument using movies as an example. A better example, with respect to movies, might be:

Viewing "Casablanca" is a totally different experience than viewing "Ladri di biciclette" which is a totally different experience than viewing "Kumonosu jô."

"Better" isn't applicable here.

[oakapple]

The NYT reviewing system could certainly stand some improvements. Frank Bruni told us very clearly in this week's review that Babbo offers 4-star food, coupled with 3-star service and ambience. (I agree with Sam Kinsey that, whether one likes it or not, there's an inescapable conclusion that Bruni considered the food on its own to be worth four stars.)

But most NYT reviews don't spell it out that way. You're left with an overall rating, and a statement on the website that names all the criteria the critic considers, but typically without any indication how those factors were weighed. Rich says:

In today's society, it seems that food is far more important than ambiance and I don't believe as many people are looking for the jacket and tie place to have top quality food.

I think Rich is wrong about this, but if every review spelled it out, as Bruni did in his Babbo review, it wouldn't matter. The people who want the critic's reaction to the overall experience would have an overall rating, and the people who just want to know about the food would have a food rating.

Since it's not practical for every review to dwell on meta issues, the ideal system would be a separate star rating for food, service and ambiance (i.e., what Zagat does), and an overall rating (what the Times does now). There are other newspapers that do this, and it would satisfy both constituencies: those that care only about the food, and those who want the critic's reaction to the entire experience.

Sam Kinsey wrote:

One thing I think it's important to understand -- and the Times is somewhat guilty of perpetuating the wrong idea -- is that a rating is not fundamentally a measure of how "good" a restaurant is. Rather, it is an indication of the style the restaurant is aiming for and the extent to which it meets those goals. Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book. But the difference in the style and goals of the two restaurants is nicely indicated by the difference in ratings.

The problem no one has yet solved - not Zagat, not the Times - is how to easily distinguish the two measures Sam mentioned: "what style of restaurant is this?" and "how well has the style been realized?"

To give a concrete example, Amanda Hesser gave one star to both Landmarc and Asiate. Yet, her review of Asiate sounded like the place is terrible, and her review of Landmarc was enthusiastic. Why is that? Because she thought Landmarc was doing a solid job in a one-star concept, but Asiate was doing a poor job in a two- or three-star concept. The result, in both cases, was one star.

For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming that her assessments of Landmarc and Asiate were correct. Even if you disagreed with them, the reviewing system remains the same for any NYT critic: "What kind of concept is this reataurant?" and then, "How well has the restaurant executed against that concept?" While it is usually apparent from the text, from the rating alone you can't tell whether the restaurant is doing a great job at what it was trying to do, or whether it is a poor imitation of a higher-starred concept.

The Zagat ratings have the same problem. A hot-dog stand with a 20 rating is a pretty damned good hot-dog stand, but a French bistro with a 20 rating is just mediocre.

Whatever we may think the Times rating system ought to be, Frank Bruni's first review was not the place to change it. Versions of this system are used at many newspapers today, and I wouldn't call it antiquated. Bruni followed the system faithfully, and by explaining his reasoning, actually performed a greater service.

[slkinsey]

On what basis would you say that Jean-Georges is better? Does the food taste better there? Is the decor and service intrinsically "better" or "better" according to a certain paradigm? What is the scale on which you are measuring them?

I am in no way attempting to denigrate Babbo. It is a terrific restaurant with usually excellent food and sometimes excellent service. It does what Batali wants it to do. But it is objectively not as good as Jean George so it has fewer stars.

Which restaurant do you believe has higher quality ingredients?

I couldn't say. Babbo is certainly not using second-rate ingredients. I don't think you can differentiate these two restaurants on this basis.

Which restaurant consistently offers better service?

They offer a different style of service. Some people will prefer Jean-George's more formal style, some won't. I have heard some complaints about the service at Babbo, but have never experienced anything there myself other than first-rate service, so I can't comment any further than that. It is worthy of note that here on eG the number of people who have been to Babbo is probably 100 times larger than the number who have been to Jean-Georges, and on average less experienced at higher-end dining.

Which restaurant is in a nicer setting?

Total judgment call. Plenty of people don't like the setting at Jean-Georges. I will say, however, that Jean-Georges has a more "four star appropriate" setting. Whether it is "nicer" is a matter of taste.

Ever feel rushed at Babbo? Cramped at Babbo?  At Jean-George?

Never at either place.

To me, the answers to these questions are objective, not subjective and not in any way arbitrary.

Nevertheless, they are entirely subjective. It's quite clear. Objective evaluations are those that can be settled with a ruler or some other instrument of measurement. Evaluations that require one to make judgments based on nebulous criteria are intrinsically subjective. For example, at a certain level the difference in quality of ingredients may very well be objective (age of the fish, etc.) at another level (both places are getting day-caught fish) it is entirely subjective.

I think one could further the argument that Babbo is actually a more "important" restaurant than Jean-Georges in terms of its influence, etc. I think it's important also to note that we agree on the most important points: 1. both restaurants are serving outstanding food at a very high level; and 2. the NYT star ratings are appropriate. We simply differ on what those star ratings indicate.

[tommy]

i'll throw in a vote for "felt cramped at Babbo but never at Jean-Georges". if we're taking a poll, that is.

[russ parsons]

maybe i missed it, but it seems everyone is arguing as if every restaurant wanted to win 4 stars. i thought implicit in the review was an acknowledgement that babbo chose to be a three-star restaurant and was happy with that and god bless'em.

[Hest88]

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.

Coming into this late: but four stars is never just about food. Ever. If I'm paying four star prices I expect the ambiance and service to be incredible. I've eaten at many nice restaurants where the creativity of the chef really shines through. Some of the dishes rival those at any four star establishment. However, if I go to a four star I expect an overall experience that elevates my dining experience to the sublime.

I also have no problem with an star system. It creates a quick a dirty method to sort through my dining choices and also allows me to understand how the reviewer really felt about his overall experience. I can read the review for details, but I think the addition of the star system also speaks to the review's blanket impression--which is just as important.

[sammy]

I think one could further the argument that Babbo is actually a more "important" restaurant than Jean-Georges in terms of its influence, etc.

Sam, I couldn't agree more.

As for the ingredient issue, I think it would be fair to say that for the cuisine Jean-George serves, the quality of the lamb is almost certainly of a higher quality than the lamb used to make Mario's famous mint love letters. And I love the mint love letters. Also, any lamb dish served at Jean-George almost certainly requires a higher level of cooking expertise and execution than Mario's famous lamb chops.

Agreed that Babbo isn't striving for 4 stars and probably shouldn't.

I still find it hard to believe that anyone would consider Jean-George to not be "better" than Babbo. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[rich]

Reading through this thread (and noticing the wide range of opinions) appears to give more credence to eliminating, or at the very least, seriously changing the NY Times star system.

Unfortunately, they missed an opportunity to revamp this when they had a new critic coming on board. It could have been a seamless transition.

Hey, come to think of it, Ms. Hesser's no rating column on Masa could have been the "segue" review.

Edited June 10, 2004 by rich (log)

[slkinsey]

As for the ingredient issue, I think it would be fair to say that for the cuisine Jean-George serves, the quality of the lamb is almost certainly of a higher quality than the lamb used to make Mario's famous mint love letters.

The ragu that sauces the mint love letters is made of merguez sausage, afaik. While it is likely true that the lamb in Jean-Georges' lamb dishes is likely better quality than the lamb in the sausage used by Babbo (not that "high quality lamb" is necessarily important or even desirable in the context of a sausage ragu), it does not necessarily follow that the lamb at Jean-Georges is higher quality than the lamb Babbo uses in its lamb chop dish.

And I love the mint love letters. Also, any lamb dish served at Jean-George almost certainly requires a higher level of cooking expertise and execution than Mario's famous lamb chops.

Here is a lamb item from Babbo: grilled lamb chops "scottadita" with Jerusalem artichokes, shiitakes and cumin yogurt. Here is a lamb item from Jean-Georges: pistachio crusted lamb chop with spring vegetable risotto and pickled spring garlic. Both go for around the same price. Neither dish indicates to me a higher level of technical difficulty compared to the other with respect to the lamb. Indeed, one could argue that some of the "simpler" cooking techniques are actually more difficult. Hitting a perfect medium-rare on the grill is a hell of a lot more difficult than putting something in cryo and plopping it into a steam oven to cook sous-vide for 24 hours.

I still find it hard to believe that anyone would consider Jean-George to not be "better" than Babbo. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I'm not saying that I personally don't agree with you, nor am I saying that I don't agree with the utility of the star rating scale as we understand it. I am just pointing out the limitations of such a paradigm, and one notable limitation is that it is virtually impossible for any restaurant that does not substantially follow the neo-French international model to ever achieve a top rating. I am further pointing out that I don't think this makes neo-French food and restaurant style intrinsically better than Italian food and restaurant style -- only different. Indeed, I think Italian food and restaurant style which has been changed in such a way as to garner a top star rating under this model is made less good thereby. Similar things could be said of the cooking/restaurant style of other cultures.

[Fat Guy]

I've got to say I think Sammy has nailed it.

More specifically with regard to Babbo, I would suggest that if Frank Bruni believes Babbo serves four star food (and I'm not yet convinced that this is the unequivocal reading of his review) then I think he falls into a reductio ad absurdum wherein the best hot dog gets four stars.

The type of cuisine represented by a hot dog can never get four stars. The type of cuisine represented by Babbo can never get four stars, at least not to my way of thinking. And when I say "the type of cuisine represented by Babbo" I am not talking about Italian cuisine in general. Because it is extremely easy for me to imagine a four-star Italian restaurant. I just can't imagine a four-star Babbo. A restaurant like San Domenico, if it simply did what it does but did it much better, with more vitality, better ingredients, a nicer dining room, etc., would be a four star Italian restaurant serving four star Italian cuisine.