[Austin] Saturday Dining Conspiracy

[Kent Wang]

http://www.realtime.net/~stainles/sdcindex.html

I was introduced to this website by an Austin Chronicle article a few months ago. To be honest, I think these people have quite poor taste and/or simply uninterested in true fine dining. Just looking at their index, the only upscale place they've been to seems to be Hudson's. No Aquarelle, Driskill, Vespaio, or Siena. Hell, I would never consider going to the majority of the restaurants on their list. Also, their thoughts on Chinese restaurants are typical of westerners uninterested in traditional cuisine.

Of course everyone has a right to their opinion, and I do applaud them for putting in the no doubt immense work of writing those logs but it just seems a shame that such a comprehensive review site is of so little use to me or -- if I may be a bit presumptuous -- any true gourmet.

I'm sorry to start a thread with so much negativity. Maybe you have a higher opinion of this site.

[theabroma]

Kent, it is an interesting list, with both interesting and 'interesting' reviews.

For me it becomes increasingly difficult rather that more and more easy to identify 'fine' dining, good restaurants, or 'authentic' cuisines (at least those I have a solid familiarity with through travel and kitchen experiences with native 'speakers' of those cuisines.).

To discuss 'fine' dining in any meaningful way, and expecially outside a pathetically few cities in the US, I believe that a working definition of 'fine dining' needs to be agreed upon, for the purposes of that discussion, at the outset. That way the participants are as close to being on the same page, with the same frame of reference. The resulting discussion and evaluation can, therefore, have some meaning and validity.

What I thought of early in my life as fine dining (laugh as you will) centered around places like the original Old Warsaw on Cedar Springs in Dallas. Then I wound up in New York, and seated before a snowy field of damask, with a surgeon;s compliment of cutlery at Le Pavillion, La Grenouille, Lutece, and places of that ilk. Well, needless to say, the subluxations in my notion of what constituted fine dining were smartly realigned by the culinary chiropractor.

But - does that mean that The Old Warsaw was not fine dining?

Zoom forward several years and there I am working in the kitchen, rather than primarily seated in the dining room. A different perspective. Totally. One has to reevaluate 'fine' in the face of the warts and all reality of what one finds in in the sauciers, saute pans, and stock pots of the local 'fine' dining establishments.

So ... is a heavily themed, expensive, and culinarily adventurous restaurant, with a 'slam' kitchen which prides itself on 400+ covers a night capable of delivering 'fine' dining? What about one that got into a groove and stayed there, amidst flurries issuing from a devoted PR machine?

I recently had dinner at a restaurant in Northern California; that experience totally reworked my definition of 'fine.' The bar is now incredibly high, and a hyperthyroid pr manger, a superstar flounce through the dining room, and signature products in bottles, have NOTHING to do with it.

Oddly enough, however, that last experience put everything back where, at least I, thing it belongs: the kitchen and the plate. So my working definition of 'fine' had to be thought through again.

We maybe have 3, possibly 4 restaurants in Dallas which would not create too much argument for being regarded as 'fine' dining. In Austin, I don't know. I love Asti, but do not consider it 'fine' dining in the generally understood meaning of the term. Vespaio. Ah, yes. I have tried to eat there twice, my brother - a resident of Austin - a couple of times. The attitude of the staff has on those occasions been what could only be described as John Cleese/Fawlty Towers behaving in a manner he believed to be the appropriate demeanor of a 'fine' dining establishment. Snobby does not cut it (unless you are a circa '66 French maitre 'd at Le Pavillion). Snotty should be directed to the nearest pharmacy for an OTC mucous drying tablet. Neither has a place in a great restaurant.

I suppose the Driskill and the Four Seasons would be the likely contenders. And Emilia's when it was still alive and kicking.

But in the end, there are other ways to define fine ... does it mean a ruinously expensive check? a table in the kitchen? a million zillion tiny courses? a wine cellar to make Bocuse weep? a smutty cascade of Tuber melanosporum over a plate which could only be christened a la chimneysweep? Or is it the best a region's cuisine has to offer? Perfectly fresh - or perfectly preserved - and perfectly prepared? Must it be served with wine? Or is this European colonization of the world's tables? We can now elevate Mexican food to a higher rang on the pecking order because we can pair it with wine?

It makes a great debate topic. It is, sadly, for many an open and shut case: 'fine' dining costs a lot of money, involved a batterie de service on the table, old or arcane wine in quantities to float a freighter, and a mega-celebrity chef who knows your first name. (On the California trip I learned a bit about the software used to run front of the house operations these days .... if the more nefarious agencies of the gov;t get their hands on it, we;re doomed. They know everything about the customers, and they use it to quietly welcome you again, for the first time, you liked x so much and we can do that tonight, etc. Quiet cosseting and a good kitchen ... maybe that's the definition of 'fine' dining after all. And that could cut some of the biggies out of the confraternity, and admit some of the more lowly places I return to for just those two things.

What do you think???

Theabroma

[Kent Wang]

'What is fine dining' is indeed a good question, but one that I'd rather not get into. What I'm particularly exasperated about, though, is why they would bother wasting time and money reviewing places like Carrabba's, Brick Oven, or Johnny Carino's. Hell, with some of these chains they even review multiple locations. No matter what you define as fine dining, I think most eGulleters will agree that those restaurants are not worth going to.

Instead of going to five of these chain places, they can go to Driskill or Aquarelle once and actually review a worthwhile place. In my above post, I described their list as comprehensive, but I need to revise that characterisation. The sheer number of restaurants that they have reviewed is tremendous, indeed, even more than the Austin Chronicle has but the choice of restaurants is horrendous. A review guide that excludes Aquarelle, Driskill, Vespaio, et al can in no way be considered comprehensive! A guide that covers 200+ mediocre restaurants is worthless compared to a guide that only covered 50 well-chosen restaurants.

I'm not even totally sure they have bad taste. Maybe they actually have good taste, but are just going to the wrong restaurants. But as they have not reviewed any restaurants that I actually like, I can't tell!

[theabroma]

Well, after reading the reviews of Alborz on that web site, I realize that the contributors, though they took the time to go, to take note, and to review/critique, don't know the first thing about Persian food. And that makes any comments - positive or negative - rather without value.

I must admit that I find reviewing chain restaurants a bit odd, especially multiple outbreaks of them. But what floats your boat and mine ...

It is a great idea to encourage people to forego a few visits to everyday restaurants in favor of occasional dining experiences and treats at places like The Driskill.

But take care - it is not the only venue in Austin. And I think it is good for many of us to be reminded that there is a whole world of taste out there, as well as opinions of its quality. It can indeed be frustrating, but it is also very exciting. After all, all foie gras and no sheep's eyeballs make Jack a dull diner.

Theabroma

[tetsujustin]

A review guide that excludes Aquarelle, Driskill, Vespaio, et al can in no way be considered comprehensive! A guide that covers 200+ mediocre restaurants is worthless compared to a guide that only covered 50 well-chosen restaurants.

←

I whole-heartedly disagree with this point for the plain fact that everyone has very different tastes and views of food. In a college town like Austin, I'm sure you know that only a small percentage of non-suburbia Austin has the budget or taste to understand the food at Driskill, Aquarelle, Vespaio. Most of the kids would murder at the sight of the prices and portions. You being an obvious antithesis.

Every review has at least some sort of merit to it, but always take it with a grain of salt because again, it is from a singular point of view. You may believe that places like Carrabas and such aren't worth the time of day, but note that these restaurants are successful enough to turn themselves into a chain whether its because of its food or not (for Carrabas my thought is that it's a lot more because Mr. Carraba than the food/restaurant itself)

I have high doubts that there is a way to define "well-chosen" because it means different things to different people. Would I dine at most of these places? No, probably not. I love independent restaurants because they give me a different feel. I can feel the heart of the restaurant in both its food and staff. I can learn about a personality of an owner or chef by eating at their restaurant... without meeting them. But I do not disregard these other restaurants listed because they do not They are what they are, and whether or not you can get a duplicated meal at a different location, I believe the point was to let people know about their opinions of the meal... valid or not. Sure I'd like to get an opinion on Wink or Driskill or Uchi or Jeffery's if I'm looking to spend more than I usually spend, but maybe sometimes I'd like an opinion on a restaurant that just so I know it'll fit what I'm craving for. Sometimes... you just want some bad chinese food, or a grasy, Americanized version of Italian. It's all how you look at it. It's like asking Frank Bruni what the point is in review places like Ninja or Lure or Spigolo when he needs to be re-reviewing older, celebrated restaurants or the newer star-worthy restaurants. I believe it's there just for the sake of education and to please a certain customer index.

Just remember, without mediocre restaurants, there'll never be excellent ones.

As for the reviews itself, I personally wouldn't use it but I know a whole lot of people that would. I agree also that in some of these reviews they need to learn to understand the ethnic cuisine more before rampaging on it... but again, different people. different point of view. If the world all had the same taste, then it would be a boring place for us cooks.... plus there would be a lot less foie for me to eat.

[Kent Wang]

First, I want to clarify that I think there are plenty of lower-priced restaurants that are worth going to. Mirabelle, Castle Hill, Quality Seafood, John Mueller's, Hut's and a number of ethnic places come to mind. I listed Driskill, Vespaio and Aquarelle as examples because I think there is much more consensus that those are excellent restaurants.

Anyway, sure, individual taste will vary and some people might really truly love chain food even given exposure to better alternatives. Hell, I know a lot of people that will only drink Bud Lite, fine beers are repulsive to them. It's certainly their right to their opinion, but the point is that this segment of the population is not the kind that is interested in food education and have no need for a restaurant guide. It is a very bizarre and tiny fragment of the dining population that is passionate enough about food to write about it but yet remains enamored with chain restaurants to which the Saturday Dining Conspiracy belongs. I truly wonder just how many people actually use their guide and find the reviews helpful.

[munchcake]

Kent,

I don't think that the SDC contributors would consider themselves "gourmets." Did you read their manifesto? A few highlights:

SDC Likes:

Quality Pepper Grinders

Decent Bathrooms

Good value for the money spent (i.e. being full after spending $50)

SDC Dislikes:

Long waits for a table

Reservations

Auto-grat for large parties

Whole tomatoes

Those criteria may eliminate many of the restaurants you would have them review. And egulleters are probably not their target audience. Their reviews are not insightful or even descriptive, and they focus very much on quantity over quality as related to price.

However, I see nothing wrong with SDC expressing their opinions - the site is just not a guide I'd use to find my next dining destination.

As for reviewing "excellent" restaurants - I think there IS a general consensus that certain restaurants are "excellent" and it's unnecessary for them to be reviewed over and over again. Dale Rice writes about the Driskill, Aquarelle and Cafe at the Four Seasons several times per year. In my mind he's doing Austin much more of a disservice than SDC. I'd love to have smaller, more interesting and more affordable restaurants highlighted - not to mention some description of a wine list. I think that the Chronicle has better food coverage, but I wish that they would publish reviews more often.

eGullet is probably my favorite way to learn about Austin's gems - "excellent" or excellent - so let's focus on the food and not debate the merits of a restaurant log that rates men's rooms and pepper grinders.