New York Magazine To Have 5-Star Rating System

[rich]

I need to follow up on my previous post with an example.

In 1979, Parioli Romanissimo (since closed) was one of the top Italian spots in NYC. I took my wife there and was dressed in a sport jacket, trousers and dress shirt with no tie. Management informed me I coudn't be seated without a tie and then proceeded to give me an ascot to wear.

The food was excellent, but I was uncomfortable. I don't wear ascots and only wear ties to work. I don't enjoy wearing them to dinner. At dinner, I want to be relaxed and enjoy my meal and wine and for me a tie or ascot negates comfort.

Bottom line, I never retured to Parioli because, in spite of great food, I wasn't comfortable. I guess under the current NY Times et al guidelines, Parioli wouldn't qualify for four stars (if I was the critic) no matter how great the food.

[Sneakeater]

See especially the last post in the second thread I linked.

[Sneakeater]

I need to follow up on my previous post with an example.

In 1979, Parioli Romanissimo (since closed) was one of the top Italian spots in NYC. I took my wife there and was dressed in a sport jacket, trousers and dress shirt with no tie. Management informed me I coudn't be seated without a tie and then proceeded to give me an ascot to wear.

The food was excellent, but I was uncomfortable. I don't wear ascots and only wear ties to work. I don't enjoy wearing them to dinner. At dinner, I want to be relaxed and enjoy my meal and wine and for me a tie or ascot negates comfort.

Bottom line, I never retured to Parioli because, in spite of great food, I wasn't comfortable. I guess under the current NY Times et al guidelines, Parioli wouldn't qualify for four stars (if I was the critic) no matter how great the food.

←

Back when Pico had just opened (and hadn't yet closed), I really wanted to try it. My wife resolutely refused, because she had heard from co-workers that they served entrees under cloches and choreographed the cloches' removal. She hated that kind of old-fashioned fussy/formal showiness. She just didn't want to go to a place like that, no matter how interesting and good the food sounded.

(I fiinally prevailed on her, and it turned out that only one dish -- the roast pig -- was served that way. But it was an actual struggle to get her there.)

Edited January 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

But OTOH, there are posters here who appear to view the new informality as a blot on the fine dining experience.

[rich]

But OTOH, there are posters here who appear to view the new informality as a blot on the fine dining experience.

←

Blot it my be, but it's reality.

When I went to Per Se (and I did unfortunately wear a tie), I had a problem with ambiance. Everyone, including the wait staff, was speaking in hushed tones. I was getting ready to bow or genuflect. To this day, I don't know why everyone was whispering.

Now, I don't want the noise level to be that of Yankee Stadium during the World Series. But I don't want to eat in an atmosphere resembling St. Patrick's Cathedral during Good Friday services either.

The food was still terrific, but it wasn't the most comfortable night I ever experienced.

[Sneakeater]

Oh, I agree with you, FWIW. Just noting that it's still a contentious issue.

[Sneakeater]

Corinna --

Also in this thread:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=44875&hl=stars

[Sneakeater]

I'm sorry if this is getting tiresome, but perhaps the definitive statement is in here:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...ne+star+quality

[Pan]

Not so, oakapple. The reason most eGullet Society members are not "confused" is that we have already read explanations by people like Fat Guy on what the stars really mean -- as opposed to what the New York Times et al. say they mean.

I've a lot of respect for your opinion, Pan, but the New York Times says that one star means "good," and two means "very good."

←

One star is apparently the next rating up from "Satisfactory," as well.

It's clear to me that this is a good review, but it is not clear to my friend, and my effort to explain that a restaurant serving slightly upscale rustic Greek food in a nice but fairly informal setting could never get 4 stars was dismissed as convoluted bullshit.

←

But did this actually lead him to make the "wrong" dining decision? I mean, is there anybody who is going exclusively to three and four-star restaurants — on the purported guidance of the Times that one and two aren't really that good?

←

I did get the impression that he felt a "mere" 1-star rating was a reason to avoid a restaurant, but we didn't get into that level of discussion. No, that doesn't mean he always eats at 3- and 4-star restaurants. As a matter of fact, he owns and manages 6 delis.

Mind you, there might be people who only eat at those restaurants for other reasons; I'm asking about people who do so because the Times confused them. I've found Fat Guy's explanations useful and clarifying, but I think I figured out on my own that that's not what one and two stars meant.

←

You did; I certainly didn't.

[oakapple]

If the Times really applied the star system rigorously according to its terms, there'd be a lot more "Satisfactory" ratings and a lot fewer two-star ratings.

←

There's a good reason why that's not the case. There are something like 10,000 restaurants in New York City. If every one of them were rated, you would indeed see a whole lot of "Satisfactory," "Fair," and "Poor" ratings. Unfortunately, with just one rated review per week, it would take about 200 years for the critic to get to them all.

Therefore, for the most part, the critics generally doesn't waste their time, and ours, on reviews of restaurants that aren't good. (And I'm defining "good" as I did upthread.) In a reviewing genre where the critic is able to cover the entire field—e.g., Broadway plays—you see much more of a range of good and bad reviews, since the paper covers 100% of the eligible population.

Would most diners enjoy themselves equally as much if Thomas Keller were serving Per Se's cusine in a McDonald's? I don't think so.

←

That's an extreme example and the answer is obviously no. But would a diner enjoy Keller's food as much in a Blue Hill or WD-50 setting?

Since there is no restaurant in New York offering food & wine comparable to Per Se in a Blue Hill or WD-50 atmosphere, it is speculation how the critic would treat it. But I've seen no reason why such restaurants could not earn four stars, and certainly you cannot say that the "star system" precludes it. After all, Peter Luger was once four stars.

Just as the NY Times current critic seemed to deduct Babbo a star for rock music et al as part of an ambiance issue. I would enjoy reading a star being deducting because the critic was pampered too much and the service was much too formal and the music too soft and the setting wasn't relaxed.

←

We've been through this before, but on a fair reading of the Bruni review, he did not say that Babbo would be four stars if only Batali would change the music.

I do think that diners want top-notch service and a refined atmosphere at a three or four-star restaurant, although the meaning of that has changed over time. For instance, there are only a handful of NYC restaurants today that require a jacket and tie, although this was once common. Obviously the ambiance, like everything else, is a matter of the critic's judgment. Critics are paid to have opinions, and at times we would wildly disagree with them, whether there were stars or not.

Edited January 3, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

But I've seen no reason why such restaurants could not earn four stars, and certainly you cannot say that the "star system" precludes it. After all, Peter Luger was once four stars.

But as Fat Guy has persuasively shown, the "star system" has changed since then, becoming more institutionalized. Moreover, as Fat Guy has persuasively shown, that change was pretty much inevitable. There is simply no way Peter Luger could credibly be given four stars now.

[oakapple]

But I've seen no reason why such restaurants could not earn four stars, and certainly you cannot say that the "star system" precludes it. After all, Peter Luger was once four stars.

But as Fat Guy has persuasively shown, the "star system" has changed since then, becoming more institutionalized. Moreover, as Fat Guy has persuasively shown, that change was pretty much inevitable. There is simply no way Peter Luger could credibly be given four stars now.

←

Yes, of course the system has evolved, as it should. But even for its food alone—leaving aside the beer hall ambiance and gruff service—no one who's credible thinks that Peter Luger is serving food that is comparable to the current four-star restaurants.

Fat Guy was absolutely incensed that Spice Market received three stars, and Sripraphai two. But perhaps these ratings demonstrate that, even today, if the critic thinks the food on the plate is superlative (as the critics did in both those cases), old-fashioned notions about ambiance don't necessarily control the outcome.

[Bux]

. . . .

But don't you believe that this is why the star system has become archaic? I'll use my favorite restaurant choice here. In my mind the Tasting Room serves top-level food is what may be called uncomfortable surroundings. Don't you believe this is a major factor why its not ranked higher? Compared to the Tasting Room, Blue Hill (which I believe serves top-level food) is a palace.

. . . .

←

Actually, I don't believe the star system is necessarily archaic in itself, but as it has to deal with an audience that is unwilling to accept it for what it is, perhaps it may just as well be considered archaic.

Once again, though, Oakapple, you're assuming that people understand that "three" and "four star" restaurants are types of restaurant and not a shorthand designation of a qualitative judgment within types.  I'm not sure most people understand that.  It isn't intuitive.  Sure, if you read enough "starred" reviews and think about them hard enough you can come to some kind of general understanding (although I must be stupid because I didn't really get it until I read Fat Guy explain it here).  But to me a shorthand code like the star sytsem is only useful if it's transparent.  I.e., if you have to think hard about it to understand it, it fails in its mission and is rather, if anything, counterproductive.

←

English isn't intuitive. Just ask my two year old grandson, but he wants to communicate with others and he's taking the effort to do so with increasing sophistication. What's wrong with having to read enough reviews and thinking about them before voicing an opinion? Trust me, eventually you will get it, with Fat Guy's help or that of others. Communication systems are useful not just if they're transparent, but more so if they can convey sophisticated information and hidden meanings, not just the obvious ones.

The problem with too many diners is that first they want immediate gratification and second, that they honestly believe the customer is always right and that their own subjective taste is the standard by which other more educated palates should judge food and communicate opinions. Please don't take this personally. I've read and responded to your posts on the site and respect your opinions. I'm using your post as a door to make a point.

[Sneakeater]

English isn't intuitive. Just ask my two year old grandson, but he wants to communicate with others and he's taking the effort to do so with increasing sophistication. What's wrong with having to read enough reviews and thinking about them before voicing an opinion? Trust me, eventually you will get it, with Fat Guy's help or that of others. Communication systems are useful not just if they're transparent, but more so if they can convey sophisticated information and hidden meanings, not just the obvious ones.

The problem with too many diners is that first they want immediate gratification and second, that they honestly believe the customer is always right and that their own subjective taste is the standard by which other more educated palates should judge food and communicate opinions. Please don't take this personally. I've read and responded to your posts on the site and respect your opinions. I'm using your post as a door to make a point.

←

I think there's a difference between (a) a language and (b) dining preferences on the one hand and © shorthand communications aids on the other.

If you wanted to draw analogies, reading the review is like learning English. The stars are this accoutrement that's supposed to make reading the review EASIER, like a study aid. What good is a study aid, though, if it's harder to understand than the subject it's supposed to be aiding?

(Also, what good is a study aid if its proponent's own explanatory materials say it means something other than it means?)

Similarly, I think the problem with the "star system" have nothing to do with the problems that unreflective undereducated people have dealing with reviews in general. You're going to have a problem with reviews if you fail to respect the reviewer's expertise and think your standard should be the reviewer's standard irrespective of any "star system". My criticisms of the "star system" have nothing to do with that.

In other words, I have a problem with shorthand communications aids if, instead of aiding communication, they obscure it. If, in fact, they distract from the communication they're supposedly aiding. I don't think shorthand communications aids should require special education to understand -- especially if they're used in mass media like the Times.

Edited January 4, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

What's wrong with having to read enough reviews and thinking about them before voicing an opinion?

Also, I think this sort of misses my concern. My point isn't about "voicing an opinion". OBVIOUSLY I think you should read and think before voicing an opinion (I lurked on this board for two years before posting).

But I'm not talking about knowledgeable discussion. I'm talking about using newspaper reviews as a consumer. I think it's ridiculous to say that you should only be able to understand what's printed in a newspaper if you read a lot, think a lot about it, and analyze what they're actually doing rather than what they say they're doing.* Times reviews aren't just for the obsessed. They're for the general public.

So it doesn't do any good to say I'll "get it eventually." In fact, I get it NOW. But I DIDN'T get it until I started lurking on this board two years ago and read the discussions. And, to be blunt, I think it's nuts to have a rating system in a mass-market newspaper that you have to read special interest internet message boards to understand.

__________________________________________________

* Obviously, I'm not opposing critical thought here. I understand that there are layers and levels of communications, and you can only understand what's really going on if you go behind what is said. What I'm talking about here, though, is obviously different. I'm not talking about some Marcusian analysis of what the Times prints. I'm talking here about understanding the communications on the most superficial level.

Edited January 4, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Bux]

. . . .

Since there is no restaurant in New York offering food & wine comparable to Per Se in a Blue Hill or WD-50 atmosphere, it is speculation how the critic would treat it. But I've seen no reason why such restaurants could not earn four stars, and certainly you cannot say that the "star system" precludes it. After all, Peter Luger was once four stars.

. . . .

←

It's all less a matter of speculation than perhaps of subjective opinion. I've not had what I consider a remarkable number of fine meals in NYC this past year, but I can count on Per Se, an eight course tasting at Daniel which ran about the same price as Per Se, Stone Barns, WD-50, Jean Georges, and the Modern (okay, it's not been a dry year either especially since my best meals were probably in Spain). It's not really easy for me to pick any one particular meal as outstanding and each of my favorites might excel in one aspect or another, but if pushed hard, I'd have to say my best meal came at Blue Hill. Perhaps it was not composed of dishes that were on the menu and had more courses than their tasting menu. I can't say. We didn't look at the menu that night. In that there was no caviar or truffle, the meal did not compare with Per Se, but on the quality of the cooking, it did and I believe WD-50 provides cuisine that matches that served in four star (NY Times) on a consistent basis. Neither WD-50, nor Blue Hill, provide what I have come to expect as a four star restaurant experience.

Michelin defines a three star restaurant as one that offers (in addition to excellent food) "Fine wines, faultless service, elegant surroundings" and adds that "One will pay accordingly" Perhaps my prejudices, in all things gastronomic, are based on my early travels in France, but Michelin set the standard by which I interpret other star systems. I believe Craig Clairborne shared the same prejudice in those terms and that historically, those have been an unwritten part of the NY Times system.

In response to comment about the stars signifying a certain genre of restaurant, I can say that I've heard chefs speak of unopened restaurants as being three star or four star restaurants, meaning that this particular rating was their ultimate goal. The style of the restaurant was determined by the chef and owner, all that remained was for the food to match the goal and for the critic to agree it did.

[rich]

Bux, in a perfect modern-day world the star system (3, 4, 5 or 10) would still only work in vacuum. The current system needs to address the lifstyle-changes of the last 30 years. While Zagat has its faults, the three-tiered breakdown is an important step in that direction.

I don't believe the system has problems because the public believes their tastes are the standard, but rather because of a general mistrust in the media. Cuozzo makes an excellent point in dumping the star system. He says it's worthless because restaurants change and re-invent themselves so quickly. They must in order to survive or because of key personnel changes.

How many times have you gone to a restaurant and found it's very different then your review of choice? I know it's happended to me. A three-star restaurant in February may be a one-star place in April or vice versa. Now granted, a prose review will be just as obsolete, but at least the restaurant won't live forever (or until some future review) in the "wrong star" category.

I agree we are a society of "rankers." We like to know whose best, whose worst and we live in a world of "top tens," "top twenty-fives," and top "one hundreds." But that's just numbers game we as society enjoy playing.

The star system as we know it, is confusing, misleading and yes, archaic. It's a product of a different era. It's a Univac in a day of lap tops.

[Bux]

Rich, in addition to other things, the restaurant situation in France was rather static when Michelin instituted its star system. Thanks for pointing that out. For all that, the star system would work for me, if I shared the reviewers' tastes.

[Sneakeater]

One thing I have to say in Adam Platt's and New York Magazine's favor is that at least he (unlike the Times) came out and explained in detail what the stars mean, and in some of his blurbs even explained why a certain number of stars was awarded.

But I think the real problem is one that Fat Guy noted, which is that as soon as you start using stars, they sort of eclipse the text of the review. People remember the number of stars awarded, but not what the reviewer said.

[Bux]

One thing I have to say in Adam Platt's and New York Magazine's favor is that at least he (unlike the Times) came out and explained in detail what the stars mean, and in some of his blurbs even explained why a certain number of stars was awarded.

But I think the real problem is one that Fat Guy noted, which is that as soon as you start using stars, they sort of eclipse the text of the review.  People remember the number of stars awarded, but not what the reviewer said.

←

So we agree, the people are the problem.

[rich]

For all that, the star system would work for me, if I shared the reviewers' tastes.

←

I think that would be true as well, but how often are two people's tastes that similar? And then there's the question (at least with the Times) of having current stars awarded by many different critics.

[rich]

People remember the number of stars awarded, but not what the reviewer said.

←

Yes, it's an excellent point. The stars do eclipse the prose, so let's snuff them out.

[Bux]

By the way, I'm not particularly a great fan of awarding stars either to restaurants, movies, or for that matter to books and paintings. I'm not even sure stars work in consumer reviews of washing machines and mobile phones. It's just that by understanding a system that's in use, I can derive the most information out of the system and my time seems better spent understanding the nuances of the system rather than railing against it. My vote is for no stars, but I'll guess that all other things being equal, a restaurant guide book with stars will out sell one with stars. The public wants them and that's why it's a waste of my time arguing for their removal.

[Bux]

People remember the number of stars awarded, but not what the reviewer said.

←

Yes, it's an excellent point. The stars do eclipse the prose, so let's snuff them out.

←

It's not necessarily the star which are at fault. It's the people's memory. Perhaps that's our best target.

[rich]

The public wants them and that's why it's a waste of my time arguing for their removal.

←

I agree with that totally. I haven't deluded myself into thinking the star system will ever disappear, but it's fun to rail against the system every once in a while.

I was shocked the NY Post dropped the stars. But I understand they will probably return one day. Everyone enjoys rankings, but champions win on the playing field.