Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

[rich]

Imagine if ADNY's bathroom wasn't fixed on his last visit - it would have wound up with the same rating as Sri.

←

I'll repeat what I just said above. It makes no sense to compare star ratings across genres. There is nothing strange about Bruni's rating; whether you agree with it or not is another thing altogether. He is working within the star system and if he feels a four-star restaurant underperforms, then he's obligated to dock stars. If a three-star restaurant lives up to expectations, he's obligated to give it three stars. But if the reader is at all informed, he or she can see that these two restaurants -- with the same star rating -- are not directly comparable.

←

I was just being sarcastic. My main observation is that the reviewer doesn't write about food as much as he should - especially when the review is somewhat negative. Said individual writes more about ambiance, his friends, cardiovascular problems, his expected life span, rock music, et al.

Edited February 2, 2005 by rich (log)

[jogoode]

I was just being sarcastic.

←

I guess I knew that .

My main observation is that the reviewer doesn't write about food as much as he should - especially when the review is somewhat negative. Said individual writes more about ambiance, his friends, cardiovascular problems, his expected life span, rock music, et al.

←

I agree with you here. When demoting a four-star, you need to do a better job of explaining why -- mentioning over-cooked lamb and a bathroom problem doesn't cut it.

[Nathan]

in mitigation it must be said that the Times policy clearly states that price is taken into consideration. Considering that the average meal at Ducasse costs roughly twice as much as one at JG or Daniel (partially due to wine).....it seems rational to assume that Bruni expected a major step over either of those restaurants in both food and service. As well, based on his description of the run-in with the sommelier....that sounded like a major snafu.

[Brooklyn]

I feel that it is only fair that all the other current 4 stars get a new review as well - I imagine none of them feel as confident with thier rating as they did Tuesday.

[Jason Perlow]

Madness!

[Todd36]

in mitigation it must be said that the Times policy clearly states that price is taken into consideration.  Considering that the average meal at Ducasse costs roughly twice as much as one at JG or Daniel (partially due to wine).....it seems rational to assume that Bruni expected a major step over either of those restaurants in both food and service.  As well, based on his description of the run-in with the sommelier....that sounded like a major snafu.

←

I have eaten at ADNY. I think the price was the consideration that cost it a star. It is so expensive that you do have to stop and think what about it is so much better than say JG.

[rich]

in mitigation it must be said that the Times policy clearly states that price is taken into consideration.  Considering that the average meal at Ducasse costs roughly twice as much as one at JG or Daniel (partially due to wine).....it seems rational to assume that Bruni expected a major step over either of those restaurants in both food and service.  As well, based on his description of the run-in with the sommelier....that sounded like a major snafu.

←

I have eaten at ADNY. I think the price was the consideration that cost it a star. It is so expensive that you do have to stop and think what about it is so much better than say JG.

←

That may be true, but then explain the Masa review. Certainly, fish that needs little or no preparation shouldn't cost as much as it does. Said reviewer didn't seem to mind the price point there.

[Todd36]

That may be true, but then explain the Masa review. Certainly, fish that needs little or no preparation shouldn't cost as much as it does. Said reviewer didn't seem to mind the price point there.

←

We've argued the cost of Masa back and forth several times on eGullet, but I think conventional wisdom says Masa is not much more expensive than several other sushi places in town, if you order the same quantity and kind of food. Kuruma comes to mind for example, and I suspect Kurmua could top Masa in price if you wanted to. And if you went to Sugiyama and pre-ordered lobster, kobe beef, best uni and blowfish, I think the food price would well exceed $200 and would start getting pretty close to Masa. What makes Masa expensive is that they give you no choice, "food will be $350." Kuruma et al allow for cheaper options. Also, the price of wine at ADNY is sticker shock inducing. A 5 glass pairing with the tasting menu starts at $130. $130 is a lot for Sake, even at Masa. And note that once of the things they gave me in my tasting at ADNY was Sake!!!!! Stuff that retails for about $50 a bottle BTW. I liked ADNY, but is roughly a $500 per person option. That's equal to about three dinners at Danube with wine pairings.

[Nathan]

look...I'm not necessarily agreeing with the demotion...I am suggesting that I can ascertain (and understand Bruni's calculus).

if ADNY is (on average) 100% more expensive than JG (which it easily is....I've gotten out of JG for not much over $200 apiece and less is doable)....than Bruni (and most readers for that matter) might expect a 40% increase in quality and service (accounting for the necessity of diminishing returns). I think he's saying he didn't get that....it doesn't appear like this was cavalierly done....it appears he went numerous times.

[R Washburn]

Will Per Se get docked a star in its next review because of the $50 price increase? It certainly is as expensive as ADNY and should, thus, be held to the same standards.

Also, why did Bruni round up the cost of the truffle menu at ADNY ? Just for extra shock value?

[oakapple]

I feel that it is only fair that all the other current 4 stars get a new review as well - I imagine none of them feel as confident with thier rating as they did Tuesday.

←

Give him time. The majority of the reviews are of new restaurants. He will get around to all of the previous four stars eventually—say, in the next year or so. He has already reviewed two of the four-star restaurants that he inherited from his predecessor; unfortunately, he has demoted both of them (Bouley & ADNY).

On the other hand, the number of four-star restaurants in New York has always hovered around 5 or 6. There are five of them now, so the three he has yet to review are probably safe. Bruni is unlikely to reduce that number unless he promotes somebody else, and there are very few plausible candidates for that (even by Bruni's standards).

[jogoode]

Bruni is unlikely to reduce that number unless he promotes somebody else, and there are very few plausible candidates for that (even by Bruni's standards).

←

Don't say it, Rich!

[Fat Guy]

The Modern is, I imagine, the next serious candidate for four stars.

I don't think Jean Georges, Le Bernardin and Daniel are necessarily at risk. They held four stars while ADNY had three before, and more likely than not they'll do it again. The hostility that exists towards ADNY just doesn't exist with respect to Jean Georges, Le Bernardin and Daniel. Also, one has to allow for the possibility of cyclical ratings. Daniel is accustomed to playing that game: he gets three stars, he gets four, he gets three again, he gets four again. The restaurant stays the same while the critics go through their on-the-job training and take their power trips, and eventually the rating stabilizes. The chances of ADNY getting four stars in a year or so are rather high -- at some point the sheer weight of reality starts to press pretty heavily on a critic, especially as he becomes more experienced and less inclined to base reviews on petty considerations. Ducasse's restaurants are constantly being demoted and promoted, mostly as gestures and not because they have actually changed.

[oakapple]

When we "review the reviewer," we need to ask ourselves two questions:

1) Has he accurately portrayed (within the confines of the allowed space) the experience that the restaurant presently offers?

2) Does the "star" rating follow reasonably from what has been said?

As applied to the Ducasse review, there's a pretty good case that three stars was reasonable, if you believe everything that Bruni wrote. He said:

But there were numerous lackluster dishes and recurring letdowns. Veal was undercooked on one occasion, while saddle of lamb was overcooked on another. Sea bream had been left on the plancha too long, although the crunchiness of the skin was partial redemption. The restaurant was also beset with pasta problems: foie gras ravioli in which the foie gras was not fully discernible; ricotta ravioli with even less flavor.

FatGuy often reminds us that no restaurant is perfect, and every restaurant disappoints occasionally. But the "numerous lackluster dishes and recurring letdowns," if true, are pretty hard to reconcile with a four-star restaurant at any price, and certainly not at ADNY's price. Bruni also points out that, after his first visit or two, the restaurant knew who he was. If they were going to produce their best for anybody, they would certainly have produced it for him. In short, if you believe that Bruni is reporting on the food accurately, you would have to conclude that there are quality and consistency issues at ADNY that go beyond what's reasonably acceptable at a four-star restaurant.

The question, then, is whether Bruni's report is accurate. Obviously I didn't share those meals (I wish I had!!), although his account is consistent with some others I've seen. The more significant issue is of emphasis. If the lackluster dishes and recurring letdowns are the main reasons for demoting ADNY from four stars to three, one must question the decision to devote only one paragraph to it.

The service/ambiance issues, although I'm sure they were genuine, probably aren't sufficient justification for a demotion. The incident of the toilet was probably not worth the space devoted to it. I agree with Bux's observation that the comment on the wine suggests that Bruni isn't much of a wine connoisseur.

[Fat Guy]

The words "numerous" and "recurring" mean very little. Although one is supposed to use the term numerous to refer only to great numbers, as in "a numerous army," we all know that a common use of numerous is to make numbers sound larger than they are. The term "recurring" also, often, is used as a form of exaggeration. The review also includes a use of "beset" to refer to two instances.

Luckily, we can count:

1) "Veal was undercooked on one occasion,"

2) "while saddle of lamb was overcooked on another."

3) "Sea bream had been left on the plancha too long, although the crunchiness of the skin was partial redemption."

4) "The restaurant was also beset with pasta problems: foie gras ravioli in which the foie gras was not fully discernible;"

5) "ricotta ravioli with even less flavor."

Even assuming no errors in judgment on the reviewer's part, one has to wonder if these complaints constitute "numerous" and "recurring" problems by which the restaurant is "beset." Presumably there were several people dining with the reviewer on each visit, allowing for the tasting of a large number of plates over the course of multiple visits. I would say that if you have only five nits to pick and the other 95 or however many dishes you've tasted range from last-supper exceptional to ultra luxurious refinement, you are in a four-star restaurant. Per Se does not perform as well, and certainly the other three non-Masa four-stars don't.

But then I think it's also worth asking if we have any good reason to believe the complaints. I am most likely to assign credibility to the comment that the lamb was overcooked. This is something that isn't hard to ascertain. I am a lot less likely to assign credibility to the claim that the veal was undercooked -- given that the reviewer has never exhibited familiarity with French culinary standards, it's hard to know if the veal was undercooked or if it was cooked exactly how a four-star French kitchen would cook veal. Of course in both cases we are not told the nature of the over- and under-cooking. Was the veal ordered well done and cooked to medium well? Or was it ordered medium-rare but cooked rare? No, it's not necessary for a reviewer to enumerate this kind of information in every instance, but when a novice reviewer is taking a star away from the world's preeminent chef-restaurateur, it makes sense to be as reliable as possible when making your claims. I'm also not particularly likely to buy into the complaint about the sea bream. Again, this could easily be a question of misapplied standards -- the classical preparation of many fin fish requires cooking them through. The two pasta complaints are so non-specific they're hard to get a hold of. I suppose either the two dishes didn't have enough flavor, or they were too subtle for the reviewer. Given the poor quality of his body of work, I lean towards the latter.

It's also curious that no visits were made to Ducasse's European properties, particularly ADPA. One would think, if the Per Se review deserved a visit to French Laundry, that the ADNY review deserved a visit to ADPA.

There are no excuses for over- or under-cooking food at the four-star level. There are not even any good excuses for making a single error in food preparation. Nonetheless, it happens at every restaurant -- I would be shocked if it didn't happen at Per Se and Masa, though less shocked to learn that the reviewer didn't have the perspective to detect it. Given that reality -- a reality for which there are no excuses but that is, nonetheless, reality -- the question for any critic becomes how to place the defects in an appropriate context. I think Frank Bruni has failed to do that with respect to ADNY, in part because his issues with respect to vanity and luxury have predisposed him to dock the restaurant a star for minor imperfections, in part because he may not have the perspective needed to know what standards to apply to the food at a Michelin three-star-type restaurant, in part because he can't gain critical distance, and in part because he doesn't see the big picture with respect to where ADNY fits in to the US and global restaurant scenes. In the end, he has given three stars to what is either the best or one of the handful of best restaurants in the country, to the restaurant that sets such a high standard for luxury cuisine and service that the chefs at the other French four-star restaurants can't even conceive of competing with it, and to the one most likely to be able to gain three Michelin stars were it transported to Europe tomorrow.

[Jason Perlow]

Is it just me, or does ordering a Vodka martini just prior to a fine dining experience not conducive to good culinary judgement, from a journalistic perspective? Doesn't that dull the palate?

[Todd36]

1) "Veal was undercooked on one occasion,"

←

I had the veal when I ate there and they served it quite rare. It's also quite pink, which makes it look even rarer. The veal itself was good, but it was not the most impressive dish they served. It is quite subtle, basically a large, very tender very plain piece of veal. I don't think it can stand on its own as much as ADNY thinks. My friend's guenia hen in a maderia truffle sauce was much more impressive, one of the best things I have ever had. The vegetables served with the veal were the best I have ever had.

Edited February 3, 2005 by Todd36 (log)

[Todd36]

Is it just me, or does ordering a Vodka martini just prior to a fine dining experience not conducive to good culinary judgement, from a journalistic perspective? Doesn't that dull the palate?

←

Blame ADNY. They roll a cart to your table when you first sit down and they try to sell you cocktails.

[slkinsey]

I would say that if you have only five nits to pick and the other 95 or however many dishes you've tasted range from last-supper exceptional to ultra luxurious refinement, you are in a four-star restaurant.

I think a reasonable interpretation of what Bruni wrote is that he offered those five examples from among a larger number of inconsistencies or letdowns at ADNY. Surely, if there had been fifteen such problems, or thirty, we wouldn't expect him to enumerate them all. So, looking at your premise, one has to ask: what percentage of "failure to live up to reasonable expectations" is acceptable. There is no reason to conclude that Bruni perceived or is claiming a 5% failure rate, but you appear to suggest that a 5% failure rate is acceptable. How about 10%? 15%? 20%?

I would argue that the acceptable failure rate goes down as a function of price. While a 15% failure rate might be acceptable at the four star level to the tune of, e.g., 150 bucks at Jean-Georges, it might be unacceptable at the four star level to the tune of 350 bucks at ADNY.

(I should point out that I am making no assertions, nor do I have any basis to make any assertions as to the failure rate at ADNY.)

Is it just me, or does ordering a Vodka martini just prior to a fine dining experience not conducive to good culinary judgement, from a journalistic perspective? Doesn't that dull the palate?

This is overplayed by haute types. Yes, alcohol does have a temporary anaesthetic effect when it acts directly on the nerves in the mouth. But this effect also doesn't last very long... certainly not as long as the effect of, e.g., drinking a rich, chewy, tannin-filled glass of red wine.

[Fat Guy]

I had the veal when I ate there and they served it quite rare.  It's also quite pink, which makes it look even rarer.  The veal itself was good, but it was not the most impressive dish they served.  It is quite subtle, basically a large, very tender very plain piece of veal.  I don't think it can stand on its own as much as ADNY thinks.  My friend's guenia hun in a maderia truffle sauce was much more impressive, one of the best things I have ever had.  The vegetables served with the veal were the best I have ever had.

←

Todd, I agree with that assessment of the veal, however let me try to provide some context (or at least I think this is the context) at the review/criticism level: in order to review a restaurant well, you have to try to grasp what the restaurant is trying to accomplish, its target audience(s), and why it makes the decisions it makes. It is often surprising for eGullet Society members, who tend to be adventurous foodies, to hear this, but many of the Michelin three-star restaurants are not restaurants for adventurous foodies. I would say, just based on a rough estimate based on my memory of the list in France, that maybe half of them provide what I would call an adventurous foodie experience (Pierre Gagnaire, L'Esperance, Arpege) and the other half (places like ADPA, Taillevent and Georges Blanc) provide an ultra-luxe fine-dining experience that can be conservative or, in some cases, minimalist (Ambroisie would be a good example there). The thing is, at these ultra-luxe fine-dining places, the target audience is not the adventurous foodie. The target audience is rich people, whether they are adventurous or not. That's why, at a restaurant like ADNY, you have some dishes that appeal to the adventurous rich foodie, and some that appeal to the unadventurous rich luxury diner.

Think about it: is there any four-star-level restaurant besides ADNY where you can get a steak? You can get composed dishes based on beef, but a whole steak schlepped out to your table and presented as such? Now, of course, what you get is a four-star steak -- "Aged ribeye of certified prime Black Angus studded with bone marrow, carrots, onions and black olives" -- but it is a steak nonetheless. When you look at a dish like that seemingly naked and underwhelming veal chop, I think it helps to view it in the same light. More importantly, the point I'm trying to make here is that all restaurants fail when examined according to the wrong criteria. And in some cases it is the restaurant, not the critic, that defines those criteria. Because really, nobody should care what Frank Bruni thinks unless he can demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. And thus far, he has not demonstrated that. So given the choice between believing that Alain Ducasse and Christian Delouvrier have specified a certain temperature for veal that is lower than the overcooked norm at American restaurants, and believing that Frank Bruni has accurately revealed a problem, I am currently inclined to place more trust in Alain Ducasse and Christian Delouvrier.

Which isn't to say ADNY is flawless. On the thread about the actual restaurant, you'll find dishes I didn't particularly like, and you'll find dishes where Ellen and I had differences of opinion. There was even an overcooked piece of fish one night -- we had the same dish, mine was cooked just right and hers was overcooked. It happens. But ADNY quite simply is a four-star restaurant. The claim that it is a three-star restaurant is absurd, and is one that places the New York Times in opposition to reality. To the extent that the New York Times by definition determines how many New York Times stars a restaurant actually holds at any given moment, of course ADNY is now a three-star restaurant. But by the standards that give that system its relevance, it is a four-star restaurant and the Times is currently beset with numerous and recurring reviews that have assigned the wrong number of stars to restaurants.

[Nathan]

"I would argue that the acceptable failure rate goes down as a function of price. While a 15% failure rate might be acceptable at the four star level to the tune of, e.g., 150 bucks at Jean-Georges, it might be unacceptable at the four star level to the tune of 350 bucks at ADNY."

as I'd noted on this topic before, I think this is the key point.....you expect diminishing returns as you go up in price but for most of us (for whom ADNY is a real splurge)...we might under understand that it can't be twice as good as JG, but we'd like to think that it's still 25-40% better in both service and taste to justify the increased expenditure.

the Times clearly states that it takes price into consideration.

[slkinsey]

as I'd noted on this topic before, I think this is the key point.....you expect diminishing returns as you go up in price but for most of us (for whom ADNY is a real splurge)...we might under understand that it can't be twice as good as JG, but we'd like to think that it's still 25-40% better in both service and taste to justify the increased expenditure.

Just to make another point: As Steven and others have pointed out in this thread and in the "Can Masa be worth it?" thread, places like ADNY aren't designed for people for whom 400 bucks on dinner represents a "save up for it" splurge. They're designed for people for whom 400 bucks on dinner is no big deal, and who probably wouldn't care if it were 200 bucks... or 600 bucks.

[Fat Guy]

Surely, if there had been fifteen such problems, or thirty, we wouldn't expect him to enumerate them all.

A simple statement that there were more would be a step in the right direction. The straightforward reading of the list is that it is the complete list. It doesn't say "for example." It doesn't say "among others." It's hard to imagine, if Frank Bruni had more in his arsenal, that he wouldn't have given some indications. And by the petty nature of his bathroom complaint, one can tell that he's willing to articulate minutiae when they help him make his case. But even just articulating the current list with some convincing specificity would have been helpful.

Surely, if there had been fifteen such problems, or thirty, we wouldn't expect him to enumerate them all. So, looking at your premise, one has to ask: what percentage of "failure to live up to reasonable expectations" is acceptable. There is no reason to conclude that Bruni perceived or is claiming a 5% failure rate, but you appear to suggest that a 5% failure rate is acceptable. How about 10%? 15%? 20%?

Most dishes are not susceptible to a binary success-or-failure analysis, or even to application of a success:failure ratio no matter how detailed the criteria. For that and many other reasons it's not possible to quantify an acceptable "failure rate," nor should it be a goal. That's why a critic needs judgment, and that's why a critic with poor judgment is in the wrong line of work.

[rich]

The point of the number of errors or failures is meaningless unless the reviewer were to give a more substantive overview of the food. With only five of the 19 paragraphs devoted to food, I don't think any meaningful discussion can take place regarding the amount or percentage of food he found flawed.

The NY Times reviewer truly needs to redefine his methodology.

[Fat Guy]

we might under understand that it can't be twice as good as JG, but we'd like to think that it's still 25-40% better in both service and taste to justify the increased expenditure.

the Times clearly states that it takes price into consideration.

←

How can one meal be "40% better" than or "twice as good as" another? I'm sure economists and statisticians would love to be able to pin numbers on meals, but it doesn't work that way. We're talking about art or something akin to it. While the market is always free to place valuations on this Picasso or that Miro, it is always absurd to say that the Picasso is "40% better" than the Miro. Also, were we even to attempt to quantify diminishing returns with respect to individual food products, those 25-40% numbers would be way out of line with realistic expectations. If you look at food situations where very clearly discernible criteria differentiate gradations of product -- caviar, those fancy Japanese melons, etc. -- what you will often notice is that price can increase several hundred percent while quality increases in only the most minute amounts, often the kinds of differences that are expressed colloquially as "less than 1%." This occurs across the board, whether you're talking about clothes or stereo equipment. But to those who can afford it, it is nonetheless worth paying more for the best.

I don't know if Frank Bruni applies a diminishing returns analysis to his reviews or not. He complains plenty about Ducasse's prices but presents no theory to tie those complaints to a system of evaluation.