Who do you think are the 4 stars in NY

[docsconz]

Avant-garde is interesting, but necessary for a 4* restaurant (or any other *). More important than being on the cutting edge is being original and creative, such that the cuisine is a relection of the chef. This can certainly be done without being avant-garde.

[docsconz]

I tend to look at the restaurant and consider what it's "striving" to be.

Can a resturant attain "four-star status" without striving for it?

I know the question was not addressed to me, but I would say this would be highly unlikely. In order to achieve the overall experience of a 4*, a lot of money must be put into a restaurant. I don't think that is done lightly without aspirations of 4* greatness.

[rich]

I tend to look at the restaurant and consider what it's "striving" to be.

Can a resturant attain "four-star status" without striving for it?

I know the question was not addressed to me, but I would say this would be highly unlikely. In order to achieve the overall experience of a 4*, a lot of money must be put into a restaurant. I don't think that is done lightly without aspirations of 4* greatness.

Doc, I was just using that quote as the springboard to my question. It was really meant for anyone.

Wouldn't it be great, though, if a restaurant that didn't have that much start-up money, but was run by a chef of vision attained "four-star status" because the food was just overwhelming, even though the surroundings didn't match the current "four-star" criteria.

Edited June 18, 2004 by rich (log)

[tommy]

Wouldn't it be great, though, if a restaurant that didn't have that much start-up money, but was run by a chef of vision attained "four-star status" because the food was just overwhelming, even though the surroundings didn't match the current "four-star" criteria.

but that wouldn't be a 4* restaurant then.

[GordonCooks]

I tend to look at the restaurant and consider what it's "striving" to be.

Can a restaurant attain "four-star status" without striving for it?

NY "is" the big show. You gotta swing for the fences.

[rich]

NY "is" the big show. You gotta swing for the fences.

A baseball analogy - now that game is totally four stars.

Edited June 18, 2004 by rich (log)

[docsconz]

Restaurants are frequently lauded for exceptional food without having the whole ball-of-wax. Amma was a case in point. The food was (and may still be) phenomenal, but it was not nor could it be 4*. 2* was right on and it wasn't a knock on the restaurant. WD-50 is another restaurant, in which the cutting edge food is felt by many to be worthy of greater stardom, but the rest of the equation just isn't there. 4* is for the complete picture. A lot of people appreciate great food and not having 4* is not necessarily a knock on the culinary merits of the restaurant. On the other hand great food is absolutely necessary for a 4*. It is necessary, but not sufficient. By the same token great service, elegant decor and a sense of luxury are each necessary, but not sufficient as well.

[rich]

On the other hand great food is absolutely necessary for a 4*. It is necessary, but not sufficient. By the same token great service, elegant decor and a sense of luxury are each necessary, but not sufficient as well.

In another thread on the four-star issue, several posts suggested that, psychologically, elegant surroundings could improve the taste of the food. If true, does that mean some current four stars may be serving three-star food but because of the money that was put up for oustanding ambience (service, surroundings, tableware et al) the food tastes better than it really is?

Edited June 18, 2004 by rich (log)

[docsconz]

I would have to say that is certainly possible, especially if one is "supposed" to like a restaurant.

[Fat Guy]

From the reports I've been hearing -- and I'm hardly as plugged into this network as the average publicist or restaurant manager around town would be -- Frank Bruni has been seen multiple times at Bouley and at Per Se (and once at French Laundry) in the past few weeks. So I think we will be getting some more data points from him soon. Really, I think, the only way either of those restaurants gets 3 stars is on an "unrealized potential due to inconsistency" basis -- they are clearly four-star restaurants at the core, but if Frank Bruni has enough unimpressive experiences at either then he will have little choice but to knock off a star and check back in a year.

As far as the Tasting Room et al. are concerned -- and I hasten to add that, as a high-school classmate of Renee I come by my crush honestly and outrank you all -- I fundamentally disagree that most of these restaurants are serving four-star food, ever. Danube, maybe. Atelier, maybe. But the Tasting Room is not about four-star food. It's about delicious food created under adverse conditions, in a tiny kitchen, at a low price point, by a couple of overstretched cooks. I'm sure Colin Alevras would be the first person to say he's not cooking four-star food. He may very well have the talent to make four-star food, if given sufficient kitchen, staffing, access to luxury ingredients, etc., but that doesn't make the food at the Tasting Room four star food. Cafe Boulud is a fantastic restaurant, and Andrew is capable on any given day of putting out a haute cuisine tasting menu that is fully the equal of the best Daniel has to offer (or maybe even better) but Cafe Boulud day-to-day does not trade in four-star cuisine -- it trades in upscale bistro cuisine.

Although New York is not France and our concepts of haute cuisine are not as restrictive as the French system of culinary taxonomy, there is still a widely recognized and sensible (I think) difference between delicious food and four-star food. There is a level of refinement and complexity (or a certain kind of elegant minimalism) that needs to be present for food to cross the threshold from delicious to four-star.

[oakapple]

Does an underperforming 4 star trump an overperforming 3 star?

Not IMO. But probably the most legitimate gripe about the star system is that, from the rating alone, you can't tell which is which. If you read the text of the review, however, it is clear. For instance, Frank Bruni made it resoundingly clear this week that Megu was an underperforming three-star. (I know we're talking about 4* here, but the concept is the same.)

My recent meal at Le Cirque 2000 was a four-star experience. Service, surroundings, food: all top-notch.

Le Cirque 2000 was formerly four stars. Like any of the restaurants in that club, it is undoubtedly capable of hitting a home run occasionally. It's the failure to do so consistently that caused it to be demoted.

Can a restaurant attain "four-star status" without striving for it?

Seems to me awfully doubtful.

In another thread on the four-star issue, several posts suggested that, psychologically, elegant surroundings could improve the taste of the food. If true, does that mean some current four stars may be serving three-star food but because of the money that was put up for oustanding ambience (service, surroundings, tableware et al) the food tastes better than it really is?

An experienced critic can probably tell the difference.

Can anyone guess when the times will be review per se. And about how many visits do you think they will make in order to review it properly. And would this include visits during lunch?

From past reports, I believe the minimum standard for reviewing a place is three visits, and it could be as many as six. I know that the Times critic eats out at least ten meals a week, which obviously includes lunches. Reviews seldom mention the lunch menu, so I'm not sure how the critic takes this into account. It's not an issue at Per Se, as the lunch menu is the same as the dinner menu. Given FG's intel, it would appear that a review of Per Se is imminent.

[Pan]

Restaurants are frequently lauded for exceptional food without having the whole ball-of-wax. Amma was a case in point. The food was (and may still be) phenomenal, but it was not nor could it be 4*. 2* was right on and it wasn't a knock on the restaurant.

I would have rated Amma 3 stars. A little cramped, but fantastic food! The food, certainly, was solidly 3-star, and as good as any food I've ever eaten in New York (and certainly far better than my meals at then 4-stars Lutece, Chanterelle, and Bouley). If you want to take off a star for the size and configuration of the room, that's your choice, but not mine. I don't think that a whole star deserves to be chopped off the place's rating for that reason, because I don't think Amma's food was borderline 3-star in any way, and I thought the ambiance was pleasant enough, within the limitations of the space. 4-star, no way, but yes to 3 stars.

[docsconz]

This is really the crux of the question. What do the stars represent? I believe we have reached a general consensus regarding 4 stars, but fewer than that runs into some difficulty.

I have devised my own view of what stars should mean. Four stars have everything in the exceptional range on a consistent basis. Three stars IMO have the ability to be four star on any given night, but do not do so consistently or do so for most things but lack at least one element at the 4 star level on a consistent basis. To me a two star restaurant is exceptional on several levels, but is sufficiently lacking in at least one area to ever be able to strive for four stars. A one star establishment is very good on a number of levels, but not truly exceptional in any.

Granted, this is not necessarily what the NY Times or any of you would use, but it makes some sense to me. Thoughts?

[snausages2000]

there is still a widely recognized and sensible (I think) difference between delicious food and four-star food. There is a level of refinement and complexity (or a certain kind of elegant minimalism) that needs to be present for food to cross the threshold from delicious to four-star.

I agree with Fat Guy's model for the differentiation between Delicious and Four-Star. Without such criteria, it'd be impossible to dilineate between a Corner Bistro cheeseburger and a Thomas Keller tasting menu. Both the burger and Keller's cuisine are delicious. Keller's food, however, is the expression of singular culinary genius, refined inspiration, a life's work, as executed by a crew of extremely talented cooks. Four-stars marks the recognition of such vision. Four-stars recognizes the beauty and artistry of the chef - what he/she (are there any 4 star, or Michelin 3 star female chefs?) does to transform delicious ingredients into a revelation.

In fact, I think the standard for four-stars should include the most difficult qualifaction: the food should be groundbreaking. Restaurants should not be rewarded for luxury. They should be rewarded for significance. This is extremely difficult to measure in real time, of course, as significance is often measured by influence, which takes time to manifest. Perhaps this has something to do with why Michelin so rarely awards 3 stars to brand new kitchens?

Of course, the most influential restaurant in the US may be McDonald's, which demonstrates why 'significance' is a tricky yardstick. Significance, then, in the narrower field of those kitchens dealing with the finest ingredients and striving to serve complex, rather than convenient, or utilitarian, meals. There is something inherently impractical and absurd about four-star cuisine, and I think that's appropriate. Food is the most practical, utilitarian thing in the world, but food-as-an-art-form is surely entitled to, and should, operate on the same terms as other artforms - free of any obligation to practicality or reality. Like great art, great food is transcendent. The greatest art and/or food should evoke profound feeling, hopefully in a way, at least slightly, different from any other previous experience. Because the experience is profound, and requires focus, it is somewhat challenging, draining, and this may speak to why a lot of us (budget issues aside) might more often prefer great restaurants to the best, why we'd rather go to The Tasting Room than Ducasse or Per Se.

Beyond the logistical information it provides, the best potential product of the star system is that it might encourage the evolution of the preparation of food. It should reward those very rare chefs that, more than just amazing cooks, are truly inventors. If Benno or Lee, masters by rote of Keller's cuisine, were to open a restaurant next door to Per Se, that served the exact same menu as Per Se, should it be awarded four-stars (granted that Per Se will soon be awarded four-stars)? Beyond the obvious issues of legality and pride, the answer shoud be no, since, despite the contributions these guys obviously make in Keller's kitchen, there would be no demonstration of unique artistry. Greatness reproduced, not greatness conceived.

The NY Times' star system has gravity if it strives to record the fleeting instances where the gourmet universe has, in some aspect, been furthered. Because, to me, culinary artistry, not the trappings of aristocratic pampering, is what four star food (Food! Food is the issue, not Restaurant) is all about, I despise the fact that so much attention is paid to "ambiance" and "luxurious setting." Sure, sometimes it's nice to sit in an expensive chair and look at a chandelier while you eat, or have 9 waiters monitor the status of your fork, but four-star food should be acknowledged even if not served in the narrow-mindedly, upper-class, white notion of "Best" surroundings. There are a ton of people that would feel extremely uncomfortable in each of NY's 4-star dining rooms. Count me in that group. I'm not suggesting total experience doesn't matter - obviously the surroundings should not be so bad as to take away from the enjoyment of the food, but a four star restaurant need not be palatial.

Despite my lack of interest in ambiance as a measure, I doubt there are more than 1 or 2 restaurants in NYC deserving of 4 stars that don't have it. Bruni's Babbo review (or, rating) really bothered me, though, because it punished a four star chef for the choices he, or his staff, make outside the kitchen. Would you remove Picasso from the art canon if all of his paintings were poorly framed?

(And to the people that say 4 stars aren't necessarily better then 3 stars, it's just 'different'...C'mon.)

Long story short, I nominate Mars 2112.

[Pan]

If Benno or Lee, masters by rote of Keller's cuisine, were to open a restaurant next door to Per Se, that served the exact same menu as Per Se, should it be awarded four-stars (granted that Per Se will soon be awarded four-stars)?

Benno is the Chef de Cuisine at Per Se (I think I'm getting the term right), so in practice, that's essentially what's happening, isn't it?

[Fat Guy]

I think you've successfully pointed us towards a definition of one type of four-star restaurant. It's a very modern definition (to frame it in the historical context, we are not all that far into the era where all restaurants were measured by the Escoffier yardstick and The Four Seasons seemed radical). So I'm not sure I agree that all four-star restaurants need to conform to that definition. I do think there's a place (and ample historical precedent) for four-star restaurants that don't do much in the way of innovation but, rather, focus on luxury and refinement. It has to be luxury done just so, not simply popping open tins of caviar and shaving white truffles on everything. But I think a luxurious enough restaurant serving more or less classic cuisine at the highest possible level deserves four stars. Just as the Michelin system recognizes both innovative restaurants and high-performing classic restaurants, the Times system should have room for both.

[xyz123]

  Bruni's Babbo review (or, rating) really bothered me, though, because it punished a four star chef for the choices he, or his staff, make outside the kitchen.  Would you remove Picasso from the art canon if all of his paintings were poorly framed?

The only thing about Babbo that might be 4 stars is its wine list.

I have eaten about 12 times at Babbo and I have yet to eat anything near 4 stars.

Service and ambiance are not 4 stars neither. It is a very good Italian restaurant but that’s because 98% of Italian restaurants in Manhattan are horrible. I have eaten better Italian food at Felidia, L’Impero, Esca, and San Domenico . There is nothing about Babbo that is in the same league as the other 4 star restaurants.

Remember we are not talking about personal preference.

[Pan]

Remember we are not talking about personal preference.

What are you talking about, then? What do you consider the "objective" criteria of 4-stardom?

[robert40]

I can't help but think about how Dave will be rolling in from work after a long day in Bouley's kitchen and curious to see how this thread is coming along.

[plpcolumbia]

My 4 star list:

Per Se

Babbo

This list is based solely on personal preference and takes into account cuisine, ambience, and service!

What are the 4-star restaurants according to xyz123?

[oakapple]

I have devised my own view of what stars should mean. Four stars have everything in the exceptional range on a consistent basis. Three stars IMO have the ability to be four star on any given night, but do not do so consistently or do so for most things but lack at least one element at the 4 star level on a consistent basis. To me a two star restaurant is exceptional on several levels, but is sufficiently lacking in at least one area to ever be able to strive for four stars. A one star establishment is very good on a number of levels, but not truly exceptional in any.

That's got to be one of the best definitions I've seen. It might not cover every case, but it comes close. I don't think it's far off the de facto Times standard.

I too liked snausages2000's homage to innovation, although I agree with FG that a restaurant can also get four stars by executing classic cuisine extraordinarily well, with of course the ambiance and service to match.

If Benno or Lee, masters by rote of Keller's cuisine, were to open a restaurant next door to Per Se, that served the exact same menu as Per Se, should it be awarded four-stars (granted that Per Se will soon be awarded four-stars)?

Benno is the Chef de Cuisine at Per Se (I think I'm getting the term right), so in practice, that's essentially what's happening, isn't it?

Keller is still responsible for the menu, and he splits his time between his two restaurants. The menu at Per Se is always changing, and it continues to reflect Keller's influence. If that stopped happening, at some point it would no longer be the place everyone is raving about.

I despise the fact that so much attention is paid to "ambiance" and "luxurious setting."

Because the Times "star" system is such an institution, I don't see any chance of these factors being eliminated. The best you can hope for is what Bruni gave us in the Babbo review — a clear indication that, if food were the only thing that counted, it might be four stars.

Bruni's Babbo review (or, rating) really bothered me, though, because it punished a four star chef for the choices he, or his staff, make outside the kitchen. Would you remove Picasso from the art canon if all of his paintings were poorly framed?

You need to stop viewing Bruni's review as "punishment." Remember, the meaning of three stars is "excellent." It was not a bad review. The consensus on the post-review threads was that Babbo is doing precisely what Batali wants, and he neither strived for nor expected a four-star review.

Edited June 19, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Frank Bruni chose to focus on questions of setting when he explained why Babbo is clearly not a four-star restaurant. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Babbo's cuisine served in a nicer setting would have or should have received four stars from Frank Bruni. I agree with his reasons for not giving Babbo four stars, but do not agree that those are the only reasons. There are food reasons as well. Having categorically denied Babbo entry into the four star club, the discussion of the cuisine and the whole thrust of the reviewer's thinking went in a certain direction. There's no telling how it would have gone had Babbo not disqualified itself on a non-food basis. There's a big difference between saying "This three-star chef is as talented as any four-star chef and is serving some awesome four-star-quality stuff!" and actually awarding four stars.

Of course, Frank Bruni may be offering a new view of the meaning of four-star cuisine that rejects the notions of refinement, complexity, and luxury that have traditionally informed the discussion and replaces them with a just-plain-delicious standard. This would, ironically, have the effect of making the four-star rating only about service, decor, and such because a four-star restaurant would simply be a three-star restaurant with better service and a nicer space.

[oakapple]

Frank Bruni chose to focus on questions of setting when he explained why Babbo is clearly not a four-star restaurant. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Babbo's cuisine served in a nicer setting would have or should have received four stars from Frank Bruni.

It seemed inescapable to me that Bruni was crediting Babbo with 4* food. He wrote:

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.

And he went on to list a number of non-food reasons for the judgment. When the "short, emblematic answer" to the question "Why not Babbo?" is a bunch of non-food reasons, I am not able to reach any other interpretation. In Bruni's view, Babbo is serving 4* food.

I mean, what could have been the point of including this lengthy back-door explanation of why Babbo isn't four stars, if the food had already disqualified it?

[Fat Guy]

There's only one way to credit a restaurant with four star food, and that's by giving it four stars. Anything less is simply not official. It has the status of what in the law would be called dicta -- comments made by judges that are not actually part of a ruling and are therefore not accorded the status of precedent. When Frank Bruni gives a restaurant four stars, we will know what he means by four-star food. As long as he's just speculating, all we have are hints. And I think if you consider that the review isn't really about Babbo but is, rather, a statement of general principles, it becomes more an issue of focus and purpose. He's opening the door to Japanese and Italian restaurants being four-star restaurants. He doesn't think Babbo makes the cut, especially for non-food reasons, but he thinks the food is good enough to pose a four-star challenge. He can believe that without necessarily being forced to conclude that Babbo actually does serve four-star food. The review doesn't actually require any sort of meditation on what four-star food is, because again to draw a parallel to the law he doesn't need to reach that issue in order to render his judgment.

Whether or not Frank Bruni would, if asked point blank, say "Babbo absolutely deserves four stars save for its decor," is perhaps a question that can be answered by Frank Bruni. It is not absolutely answered in the review. He leaves himself too much wiggle room in terms of the way he constructs the sentences, his use of "emblematic," etc., for us to conclude that he was making an unequivocal claim. Moreover, if he would say "Babbo absolutely deserves four stars save for its decor," we would still have to take it with a grain of salt until such time as we get to read a four-star review, particularly of an Italian restaurant. Likewise, I happen to think he would be wrong to say "Babbo absolutely deserves four stars save for its decor." Of course he has the power to award any restaurant any number of stars he wants to award it, but that doesn't make him right.

[xyz123]

Remember we are not talking about personal preference.

What are you talking about, then? What do you consider the "objective" criteria of 4-stardom?

As it was stated in FatGuys first post, the 4 stars are appropriately awarded to the restaurants deserving them. I personally don’t care much about Daniel or Le Bernardin, Specifically their food. But that does not mean that they are not 4 star restaurants. They both operate as 4 star restaurants.

Of current restaurants that might deserve 4 stars I have eaten at Atelier Just one time, so I don’t think it would be fair to say if it’s a 4 star restaurant. Same goes for Per Se. I have eaten many times at Danube and it’s a 4star restaurant on all accounts.

To further explain a 4 star restaurant. I have eaten at Charlie Trotters 2 times, once it was Absolutely great, and the next was just great. On one of the trips to Chicago the very next day after eating at Charlie Trotters I ate at Spago, the food at Spago was just as good as Charlie Trotters, the day after that I ate at a place called Arun the food at Arun blew Charlie Trotters and Spago away. But only Charlie Trotter’s operates as a 4 star restaurant.