this is amusing

[alacarte]

We Are Not Amused -- Steve Cuozzo on the rise and steep decline of the "amuse-bouche."

Call this an amuse-bitch - but they're too often a waste of time that subjects customers to awkward confusion and/or cringing.

Rather than work on getting the dishes right that we actually ordered, chefs all over town comb the kitchen for leftovers and/or experimental combinations.

ouch.

I'm a fan of the freebie amuse-bouche, myself. whatever your camp, this is a funny article.

[NulloModo]

I have to say I disagree with the author. In my opinion anything free is a very good thing, and I am more than willing to be treated as a guinea pig for potential new flavor combinations. If I don't like it, or I can't eat it, I will simply not eat it. Otherwise, bring on the freebies.

[Bux]

I have to side with Nullo, and as he says, if the free thing is not a goodd thing, pass on it. I have a friend who has a severe allergy to fish and seafood. He passes on the free scallop. If his wife isn't on a diet, she gets two. Otherwise I get two. No offense taken by anyone at the table or in the kitchen. In truth, if it's not good, it's still not much of a loss. I mean it's better than if the main course is not to your taste.

I've had courses served in an eggshell. I've not had a problem. If his friend had a problem, it's the eggshell not the fact it was an amuse. As fan of dining, I don't get upset when the meal is longer especially if I'm not sitting there hungry with nothing to nibble on. It almost seems as if Cuozzo is railing against the graciousness of fine dining and it's appearance in our daily restaurants. Bless the chef who sends me a little treat and I don't care if I'm the only one in the house to get it, or if everyone else gets a little canape just to prove I'm a nobody.

Maybe it's that I'm not a restaurant and get to choose my restaurants or maybe I just choose more wisely than Cuozzo but my amuses are generally a treat. Still I share Nullo's attitude about a free chance to try something new. Bah humbug to ingrates. I thought it was going to be parody, but he seemed serious.

[Pan]

You may think only a critic would complain about getting something for free.

Yeah, that's about right.

I'd complain about an amuse bouche if it were truly awful (rotten, etc.), but that's never happened to me. The thing I like about amuses bouche, extra desserts, and intermezzi is that I get a chance to experience the invention of the chef (and pastry chef) in dishes that I wouldn't have known to order, but these are little tastes and don't create much of a problem in terms of eating too much (well, sometimes, I do find more stomach space for them ). Is it possible that Cuozzo is a bit jaded? It would be great if he would post here and tell us whether he is near the end of his time as a restaurant critic or needs to take a break from it. I've enjoyed his reviews, though.

[ellencho]

Does it still count as an amuse bouche if they are mini desserts that you receive before and after your main dessert? Fiamma's in NYC did this for us, and good lord I'm glad they did.

[ryangary]

Does it still count as an amuse bouche if they are mini desserts that you receive before and after your main dessert? Fiamma's in NYC did this for us, and good lord I'm glad they did.

←

Usually they call these pre-desserts.

[bilrus]

This strikes me as a personal gripe that is out of touch with the general public.

The most dreaded words diners hear today are, "a gift from the chef,"

Hardly.

Although I do have to agree that the amuses at The Modern (six different items served as two courses) ranged from good (a beggar's purse of trout and trout roe) to bizarre (a shot glass of celery juice).

[Osnav]

I'm with most of comments so far. What's wrong with Free taste treats. If they don't appeal to you try this: "No thanks."

But, hey. not every article can be Pulitzer material. Remember these quys have to crank out something or they don't get paid. If most of his reviews are good, I personally don't read his reviews, then give him the benefit of an off day.

osnav

[alacarte]

I've always wondered -- what do you call the free extras you sometimes receive at restaurants that are not necessarily as formal as amuse-bouches? For example, a gratis tray of olives or hummus. (I do know that one professional chef on this board calls them "free food for free-loaders" but I highly doubt that's the technical term.)

I'm also kind of fuzzy on what exactly qualifies a dish to be an amuse-bouche, other than that it's something light that you are offered to "amuse your mouth" before the appetizers and entrees commence. For example, does it need to be free? Does it need to be plated for one vs. a bowl of something for the table? Does it need to be fancy?

[309719]

Taking from the articles that I have read from him, he seems to just be ignorant and very uneducated when it comes to food above a certain level of execution. Not very good characteristics for a food writer, IMO.

[touaregsand]

The whole article is strange, beginning with the thesis and the examples that are just fishing for ways to complain about something that is FREE and meant as a friendly gesture from the kitchen.

It seems like Cuozzo needs a vacation from food writing to replenish his creative juices. At this point he's just a sour lemon fabricating bad "news".

[bilrus]

I bet that if he asked nicely, most restaurants would be happy to not give him anything extra.

[jsolomon]

Coming from a not-well-known-for-cooking state in the US, I've had one amuse bouche in my lifetime. It wasn't bad, but it was in a rather pretentious establishment.

I have to agree with one concept, but with much less bile. If your server can't describe it adequately, it definitely detracts from the experience.

But, free as in beer stuff? Bring it on. The worst I'll say is, "no, thanks".

[VeryApe77]

I'm with most of comments so far.  What's wrong with Free taste treats.  If they don't appeal to you try this:  "No thanks."

But, hey.  not every article can be Pulitzer material.  Remember these quys have to crank out something or they don't get paid.  If most of his reviews are good, I personally don't read his reviews, then give him the benefit of an off day.

osnav

←

Yep. The whole article smacked of "oh shit, my deadline is in 20 minutes, better come up with something, maybe that third martini was a mistake after all etc". A ridiculous piece, but I'm not familiar with his other stuff, so...

Edited March 31, 2005 by VeryApe77 (log)

[SKinCA]

Was anyone else a bit uncomfortable with his attitude towards his server's accent?

I thought we'd gone a bit farther along in our thinking than making fun of people with poor english skills. I thought that diluted one good point - that servers should be able to adequately describe the food they are presenting.

And I'm never unhappy with something extra from the kitchen. A hit or a miss, it's a chance for me to take a chance on a new flavor. If it's not so good - so what? A sip of water and it's over. If it's great - than yahoo! Maybe I've broadened my culinary horizons.

[touaregsand]

Was anyone else a bit uncomfortable with his attitude towards his server's accent?

I was.

The most dreaded words diners hear today are, "a gift from the chef," announced by a lowly crew member whose weak grasp of English leaves everyone scratching their heads. "Rotten lamb?" Oops, gratin of lamb.

I think that he's referring to someone who might be a busser. Who wouldn't be trained to field questions about the food. Or maybe an expeditor who just delivers the food, but expeditors don't always speak English that well even though often times they know the menu as wells as a server.

"eep crop poor gozola croce." A waiter finally rescued us - and him - by identifying the mystery item as a red beet-crisp coronet filled with beet puree and gorgonzola dolce.

Isn't that sort of like asking the host/hostess for wine recommendations, then complaining about inadequate suggestions, then finally being rescued by the sommelier?

[Bux]

touaregsand, you've noticed that he seems not to be at home in fine restaurants. That he's an unadventurous eater was clear from the get go. Great qualifications for a food writer.

[touaregsand]

I've always wondered -- what do you call the free extras you sometimes receive at restaurants that are not necessarily as formal as amuse-bouches? For example, a gratis tray of olives or hummus.  (I do know that one professional chef on this board calls them "free food for free-loaders" but I highly doubt that's the technical term.)

I'm also kind of fuzzy on what exactly qualifies a dish to be an amuse-bouche, other than that it's something light that you are offered to "amuse your mouth" before the appetizers and entrees commence. For example, does it need to be free? Does it need to be plated for one vs. a bowl of something for the table? Does it need to be fancy?

←

Amuse bouche don't have to be formal at all. There are no restrictions on simplicity or baroqueness. Traditionally it was something sent out for free, but these days it can be on a menu with prices in which case it will be reflected on your tab. There aren't set rules about it being plated or in a bowl. It doesn't have to be fancy. It can be a tiny square of toasted brioche with lobster butter on it.

Does it still count as an amuse bouche if they are mini desserts that you receive before and after your main dessert? Fiamma's in NYC did this for us, and good lord I'm glad they did.

No.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

Rather than work on getting the dishes right that we actually ordered, chefs all over town comb the kitchen for leftovers and/or experimental combinations.

Wrong! The leftovers and experiments gone bad are for family meal!

Hey -- how does everyone pronounce "amuse" when it's short for "amuse-bouche"? The last place I worked, the Chefs (who both speak fluent French) called it "amuse," as it appears, and I always did, too. At school, I've had Chefs who call it "ah-mew-ZAY." I have never seen an accent over the final 'e.'

[Andrew Fenton]

Well heck, I just hate to see all this unanimity. Just for fun, let's see if we can't come up with a better argument against the amuse-bouche. We'll break it down into three parts:

1. The amuse-bouche is a fad, and is played out. Admittedly, this is a bit subjective, but amuses are something that, like tall food or any other trend, were interesting and unexpected at first. Now that they've spread like so much kudzu across the restaurant landscape, they've become de rigeur, and all too often, boring.

2. An amuse-bouche isn't really free. That seared scallop costs something, in labor and ingredients, and you're paying for it one way or another in the other dishes you order.

3. An amuse-bouche is a distraction from what's really important about the meal.

3a. The chef and the other employees are devoting time and energy towards something you didn't order; that's time and energy taken away from the items on the menu.

3b. It's aesthetically displeasing. Unless the amuse is part of a set menu that the chef has planned in advance, it may well not fit into the overall scheme of the meal. Adding an amuse is focusing on the trees rather than the forest, as it were.

[Brithack]

I don't really have a problem with amuses-bouches BUT I do get a little irritated with cliched amuses-bouches. For instance, in London in any case, the dreaded espresso cup filled with white bean 'cappuccino' with truffles. NO MORE!!!!

x

[Cap'n Crunch]

I think Steve's biggest problem is his disdain for waitstaff

'the waiter makes a face'

'the waitress scowls'

'staff incapable of communicating'

'a lowly crew member whose weak grasp of English leaves everyone scratching their heads'

Maybe he's just plain scared of us all.

[rich]

I enjoy all the "little dishes," but please, let's not ever, ever say they're free. Everything is built into the cost of the food and drink. These items don't appear on the bill individually, but they're factored into the cost of the "unfree" items.

[Bux]

  3b. It's aesthetically displeasing.  Unless the amuse is part of a set menu that the chef has planned in advance, it may well not fit into the overall scheme of the meal.  Adding an amuse is focusing on the trees rather than the forest, as it were.

←

I don't think the concept of an hors d'oeuvre is unreasonable. Bear in mind that the translation of "hors d'oeuvre" is outside the work, or apart from the meal you came to eat. Free or not, presumably you were prepared to pay the listed price for each of the dishes you've ordered and when you're finished eating, you'll know if you received value for your money and whether you'd like to come back based on the total package.

While I can find no fault with the concept, it can be disasterous in excepcution. In a one star restaurant in France, I was once served an amuse I enjoyed, but which later proved to be the garnish on my main course. The whole main course suffered as a result. I felt I was eating leftovers. It was like watching a movie and seeing the opening scene again. I felt it was time to go home. There was a cook of little talent in terms of dining.

[touaregsand]

I enjoy all the "little dishes," but please, let's not ever, ever say they're free. Everything is built into the cost of the food and drink.

←

Amuse cost pennies. Even the more elaborate ones 25 cents max. They don't cut into labor costs much either.

These items don't appear on the bill individually, but they're factored into the cost of the "unfree" items.

True, but so are the linens and toilet paper.

In my years of calculating food costs at the FDR level, I don't recall factoring the food and labor costs of amuse into menu prices. I see amuse bouche as a friendly gesture, the simple ones are the best. They don't take much time to prep and can be composed in seconds.

Has anyone been served one that looked like it took a lot of time? If so please describe. I'm curious.