Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Fat Guy]

I think, given Bruni's clear penchant for meta-issues, that it would make sense for him to propose new wording for "What the stars mean." There's no reason it couldn't be fleshed out a little.

[Fat Guy]

The bar is definitely higher now than it was in the 1970s, though I think it may be lower than it was in the mid-1990s. But what's even more interesting is that the Chinese restaurant bar seems to be categorically lower. When you think about what the level of luxury was at places like Uncle Tai's Hunan Yuan, you simply can't find that at any Chinese restaurant today. So it's not as though they stayed put and the bar got raised. I see it more as them failing to keep up with the natural course of development of any growing form. Interestingly, Uncle Tai's Hunan Yuan seems to be operating at the upscale Boca Center in Dallas, where it is apparently "One of Dallas' most elegant and priciest restaurants." (DiningGuide.net)

Vong is a good example of a non-Japanese Asian restaurant that has at times operated near the four-star level in terms of overall experience. Not that Vong has ever deserved four stars -- and today it probably doesn't deserve three either -- but as a theoretical rather than an empirical statement I think we can say that Vong demonstrates the potential for four-star Asian dining in New York. I also think the finest hotel restaurants in Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok, and a few other cities around Asia could easily set up camp here today and get three stars, and once you do that, assuming you've got all the trappings of luxury in place, it's just a question of scaling up to four and convincing critics to recognize it and consumers to pay for it. Give me $20 million and I can easily build a four-star Chinese restaurant by hiring the right consultants from around here and the right chef from a top Asian hotel restaurant. It will go out of business in a month because nobody will pay what I need to charge to recoup that $20 million, because the critics might not get it, and because I would embezzle all the money in order to subsidize my personal dining and travel. But building it isn't a big challenge. Some said Lespinasse under Gray Kunz was a four-star Asian restaurant, though I disagree that it could really be called Asian. In any event, it demonstrates the potential of that palette of ingredients in a four-star context.

[oakapple]

Robert Brown wrote of "impending star inflation":

There have been two consecutive restaurant reviews that tease us with the notion of awarding four stars to types of restaurants that never have received four stars. But for some tables instead of a only a sushi bar at Masa, and The Black Crowes (maybe he was thinking he was served Mason Black Crows) that disturbed the Sultan’s visit to Babbo, we would have two more New York Times four star restaurants (a 40% increase). If you want to take the Masa review literally, then we have 5-1/2 four-star restaurants, which would include that Japanese restaurant that Bruni thinks should be in the top echelon one of these days.

This is entirely untrue. Bruni said very clearly that Babbo is not a four-star restaurant, for a whole bunch of reasons, and not just the music. It remains to be seen whether Masa will get four stars. Supposing it does, and likewise Per Se, that would make just seven (out of thousands of restaurants in NYC). There were six four-stars till Lespinasse closed, and an increase to seven — assuming that happens— is hardly grade inflation. If Bruni bumps the number up to something like 9 or 10, we can re-open the discussion of whether the category is being watered down. I doubt that that will happen, but we shall see.

I don't think that the NYT should go to a 5-star system, just to accommodate two restaurants that are at the top end of the 4-star category. Every star category covers a wide range. A 3-star, for instance, could be just barely better than two, or just barely shy of four. If anything, I'd be more inclined to add half-stars, to allow the more heavily populated 1-3 star categories to be more finely differentiated.

I know that Rich thinks the whole system should be junked. Even if he were right (which I don't think he is), the first review of a new critic who just got here, and wasn't even living in New York for the last several years, and has not historically been a food critic, is not the time or place to do it.

[rich]

I know that Rich thinks the whole system should be junked. Even if he were right (which I don't think he is), the first review of a new critic who just got here, and wasn't even living in New York for the last several years, and has not historically been a food critic, is not the time or place to do it.

Based on that statement with those accurate facts, I believe it would be the perfect time to do it. Clean slate, fresh ideas and concepts. Hey, we may stop calling the NY Times the "old gray lady."

If the star system remains, adding a fifth star would just further confuse the issue. As of now, it seems too much emphasis is being placed on ambiance for that elusive fourth star. If you added a fifth, a restauranteur would need to have floating tables with anti-gravity devices to "keep up."

Seriously, at what point do we (the public, not the professional food critics) place more emphasis on the food than the surroundings? Looking over this thread the majority of remarks have been geared towards ambiance. I realize I'm in the minority, but in my mind that's a "whole lot less important" than the food. I recall the old NYC axiom (back in the 60's & 70's) if a restaurant had a great view (water or skyline) the food wasn't very good. And for the most part that proved true. When I started to seriously dine out on dates (I was 18 in 1968), it was very easy to impress your date by taking them to a "fancy" place, the food was secondary. I thought we, as a society, moved beyond that thinking.

Apparently, I'm in error. Put enough money into the place (I think Steve said $20 million), make sure the food is okay (get a great name chef), tell the world your aiming for four stars and you're on your way. Use enough smoke and mirrors and you may get that elusive fourth or fifth star and if the food is good, that's a bonus. I'm obviously exaggerating, but it seems if you carry this thread to it's "illogical conclusion" that's where it will end.

Last evning I ate at Henry's End in Brooklyn. The place has been around for 30 years and I've been eating there for 25 years. It's small, cramped and noisy (though they don't play music), but it serves some of the finest food I've ever had. My main course was a grilled tuna (cooked rare to absolute perfection) with a fiddlehead fern pesto. This dish was better than any course I ever had at Per Se, ADNY or Babbo. In my opinion this restaurant has always served "four-star food," but the ambiance woudn't get one star according to our "mirrors and smoke" mentality. I can give no better example of why to revamp or eliminate the star system than Henry's End.

Eveyone seems to knock Zagat, but at least they have enough sense to separate the food the rest of the stuff.

[slkinsey]

But it isn't only about the food. It never has been and never will be.

I think there is a valid point to be made that there is a qualitative difference between having the same dish in different surroundings. Part of the four star experience certainly has to do not only with the attractiveness of the space, but the sound level, how comfortable and spacious the settings are, the style and pace of service, the quality of the flatware and glassware, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that one would have an entirely different experience eating a tuna and fiddlehead dish in a crowded, noisy, less than optimally comfortable restaurant in 1 hour as opposed to having the same dish as part of a 5 course meal in a spacious, quiet, comfortable restaurant where the table is yours for the night, real linen on the table and in your lap, eating off of fine china, using silver flatware and sipping a wine the expert sommelier helped you match to your food out of a Riedel glass. Not only would the meal itself be a radically different experience, but perceptual and social psychology strongly suggest that your subjective perception of the exact same dish would be rather different as well.

[rich]

But it isn't only about the food.  It never has been and never will be.

I think there is a valid point to be made that there is a qualitative difference between having the same dish in different surroundings.  Part of the four star experience certainly has to do not only with the attractiveness of the space, but the sound level, how comfortable and spacious the settings are, the style and pace of service, the quality of the flatware and glassware, etc.  There is no doubt in my mind that one would have an entirely different experience eating a tuna and fiddlehead dish in a crowded, noisy, less than optimally comfortable restaurant in 1 hour as opposed to having the same dish as part of a 5 course meal in a spacious, quiet, comfortable restaurant where the table is yours for the night -- especially when you figure in perks like expert sommelier service to help you find the perfect wine to match, etc.

I'm not saying there's no place for the "ultra-comfort zone" restaurants. I believe there is, but when an over-emphasis is placed on ambiance, that's where I draw the line.

Would that dish have tasted better in more spacious surroundings? I think not. Would I have been more comfortable? Obviously yes (as long as "they" didn't make me wear a tie), but the food would have tasted the same. A text review with no star sytem would have explained the ambiance and then I could make my choice.

The wine situation is personally irrelevant. I always choose my own, no matter the restaurant. And for the record, Henry's End has a top-flight wine list.

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think this notion that the fourth star is for ambience approaches the issue from a questionable perspective. It's not as though there are all these restaurants out there serving food as good as Jean-Georges and ADNY but that aren't allowed to have four stars because they're too casual. The four star restaurants serve the best food. It so happens they also have luxury ambience -- it goes hand in hand with being the best. The cost of ingredients and labor, the wine program needed to support that kind of cuisine, and the seriousness of servers needed to present it all lend themselves to the need for luxury.

On occasion, we might see a brilliant chef who pulls it together so as to offer four-star-worthy cuisine, but in a restaurant that doesn't have the corresponding wine, service, decor, etc. That restaurant needs to be given three stars because it doesn't offer the complete experience.

[slkinsey]

I think this notion that the fourth star is for ambience approaches the issue from a questionable perspective. . . . On occasion, we might see a brilliant chef who pulls it together so as to offer four-star-worthy cuisine, but in a restaurant that doesn't have the corresponding wine, service, decor, etc. That restaurant needs to be given three stars because it doesn't offer the complete experience.

Exactly. The fourth star includes ambiance, among a whole host of other prerequisites. If four stars simply stood for "really good food" we'd have a lot more of them.

[rich]

I think this notion that the fourth star is for ambience approaches the issue from a questionable perspective. It's not as though there are all these restaurants out there serving food as good as Jean-Georges and ADNY but that aren't allowed to have four stars because they're too casual. The four star restaurants serve the best food. It so happens they also have luxury ambience -- it goes hand in hand with being the best. The cost of ingredients and labor, the wine program needed to support that kind of cuisine, and the seriousness of servers needed to present it all lend themselves to the need for luxury.

On occasion, we might see a brilliant chef who pulls it together so as to offer four-star-worthy cuisine, but in a restaurant that doesn't have the corresponding wine, service, decor, etc. That restaurant needs to be given three stars because it doesn't offer the complete experience.

No argument Steve. But since it's really about the food why not eliminate or separate the star system? Can anyone think of a reason to keep the current NY Time star system? A lot a posts indicate the need to keep it, but none has given a definitive reason why.

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[sammy]

1. Maybe for another thread but what NYC restaurants, if any, do you believe strive to serve 4 star food but don't attempt to include the other necessary 4 star components (ambiance, wine, etc.)?

2. What NYC restaurants do you believe are serving 4 star food but do not have 4 star ratings?

I'd put WD-50 in #1. My view is only consistency across the menu is holding them back.

I don't think there are any under #2.

[oakapple]

Looking over this thread the majority of remarks have been geared towards ambiance.

That's just because there's no argument that four-star restaurants should serve four-star food. I believe everybody here agrees that if the food is sub-par, décor can't rescue it.

Rich, to an extent I think you have misunderstood the Times's current rating system. Although admittedly the paper hasn't stated this, I think the de facto standard is that the food primarily determines the rating. If the food is solidly two-star quality, the restaurant isn't going to get three stars just because it looks pretty. But for restaurants near the borderline, non-food issues determine the final rating. The four-star category is special: everything has to be just-right.

Can anyone think of a reason to keep the current NY Time star system? A lot a posts indicate the need to keep it, but none has given a definitive reason why.

Your original position was that the Times should abolish stars, and only publish unrated reviews. A number of reasons have been given why this is a bad idea. You may not like the reasons, but they're there all the same.

I do think it's worth exploring changes to the system, while maintaining the core idea that there should be an actual rating. However, changing the system is a bit like tax reform: you could get a majority to agree that there must surely be a better system, without getting a majority to support any one particular plan. So while the Times mulls this over, in the meantime they have to keep their newspaper running. As you've seen from the discussion here, most people do think there should be a bottom-line rating, however it might be done.

Edited June 11, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Can anyone think of a reason to keep the current NY Time star system? A lot a posts indicate the need to keep it, but none has given a definitive reason why.

Your original position was that the Times should abolish stars, and only publish unrated reviews. A number of reasons have been given why this is a bad idea. You may not like the reasons, but they're there all the same.

I do think it's worth exploring changes to the system, while maintaining the core idea that there should be an actual rating. However, changing the system is a bit like tax reform: you could get a majority to agree that there must surely be a better system, without getting a majority to support any one particular plan. So while the Times mulls this over, in the meantime they have to keep their newspaper running. As you've seen from the discussion here, most people do think there should be a bottom-line rating, however it might be done.

I would abolish the stars, but as an alternative separate the food and ambiance. That seems quite simple.

What I find interesting is that the majority of readers thought Amanda Hesser's no-star-rating review of Masa was a fresh, creative approach and now most of those same people want to keep the stars. Nothing like consistency.

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[sammy]

Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food?

[slkinsey]

It's an interesting question. I can't think of any.

[oakapple]

What I find interesting is that the majority of readers thought Amanda Hesser's no-star-rating review of Masa was a fresh, creative approach and now most of those same people want to keep the stars. Nothing like consistency.

I think most people found it "fresh and creative," in the context of something that would only be done once, and in the unique circumstance that it was Hesser's farewell review. A fresh, creative idea is neither fresh nor creative if repeated every week.

[rich]

What I find interesting is that the majority of readers thought Amanda Hesser's no-star-rating review of Masa was a fresh, creative approach and now most of those same people want to keep the stars. Nothing like consistency.

I think most people found it "fresh and creative," in the context of something that would only be done once, and in the unique circumstance that it was Hesser's farewell review. A fresh, creative idea is neither fresh nor creative if repeated every week.

A fresh, creative idea is one that shouldn't be done just once, especially if it's replacing an old, obsolete idea.

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[rich]

Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food?

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did.

Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one. I think Henry's End is another and list is probably much longer than that.

But even if there wasn't any, the discussion is meaningful because the same points are valid with one and two-star reviews.

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[sammy]

QUOTE (sammy @ Jun 11 2004, 11:21 AM)

Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food? 

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did.

Which NYC restaurants do YOU think are serving 4 star food without a 4 star rating?

[rich]

QUOTE (sammy @ Jun 11 2004, 11:21 AM)

Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food? 

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did.

Which NYC restaurants do YOU think are serving 4 star food without a 4 star rating?

Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues to impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger.

And I'm sure there a quite a few more.

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

A fresh, creative idea is one that shouldn't be done just once, especially if it's replacing an old, obsolete idea.

Most people here support the idea that restaurants should be rated, and most newspapers around the country do exactly that. What, then, is the evidence for obsolescence, aside from the fact that an apparently small minority don't like it?

[slkinsey]

Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food?

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did.

Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one.

Well... his review implied that Babbo might have four star food. Although I have been playing Devil's Advocate a bit to stir up the pot, I don't really think the food at Babbo is entirely in keeping with the current model for four star food.

Which NYC restaurants do YOU think are serving 4 star food without a 4 star rating?

Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger.

And I'm sure there a quite a few more.

This may be where the disconnect lies. You are describing places that serve good food, but what is "four star" about their food? Look... I love Landmarc, really love it. But by no stretch of the imagination are they serving four star food. It's ridiculous to even suggest that "mussels or steak with your choice of 5 different sauces" and "sweetbreads with crunchy green beans" are in the same category as what comes out of the kitchen at ADNY.

[rich]

Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food?

We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did.

Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one.

Well... his review implied that Babbo might have four star food. Although I have been playing Devil's Advocate a bit to stir up the pot, I don't really think the food at Babbo is entirely in keeping with the current model for four star food.

Okay, let's eliminate the ambiance. What's the current model for four-star food?

[rich]

A fresh, creative idea is one that shouldn't be done just once, especially if it's replacing an old, obsolete idea.

Most people here support the idea that restaurants should be rated, and most newspapers around the country do exactly that. What, then, is the evidence for obsolescence, aside from the fact that an apparently small minority don't like it?

Sometimes small minorities are correct. And what's your evidence for small minorities around the country?

[rich]

Which NYC restaurants do YOU think are serving 4 star food without a 4 star rating?

Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger.

And I'm sure there a quite a few more.

This may be where the disconnect lies. You are describing places that serve good food, but what is "four star" about their food? Look... I love Landmarc, really love it. But by no stretch of the imagination are they serving four star food. It's ridiculous to even suggest that "mussels or steak with your choice of 5 different sauces" and "sweetbreads with crunchy green beans" are in the same category as what comes out of the kitchen at ADNY.

I'm not asking you to agree with me about Landmarc and I said I would consider it if it continuted on its path - meaning creative cooking. What about the others on the list.

[oakapple]

Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger.

And I'm sure there a quite a few more.

It would be easy to pick apart this list, and I'm sure someone will. Instead, I'd ask what are the criteria — in YOUR mind — for the lower star ratings? If so many of the restaurants presently at lower levels are elevated to four stars, what is the purpose of one, two and three-star ratings?

I mean, you've included here three-star places like Aquavit, Nobu and Chanterelle. It is at least arguable that these places were serving four-star food at the time they were rated, and "other issues" prevented them from getting the fourth star. It is also arguable that even the food wasn't four-star quality at these places, and I suspect someone will make that argument.

But Grocery, Sparks and Landmarc are currently carrying one star. Are you suggesting that the Times docked them three stars apiece due to non-food issues? Or are you suggesting that the critic was that far off, even on the food component of the rating? If the latter, then the Times rating system isn't the problem; what you're really saying is that the critics are incompetent.

You say you're sure there are "quite a few more." What you're arguing for, fundamentally, is that the four-star rating should be a awful lot easier to get.

Edited June 11, 2004 by oakapple (log)