Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Nathan]

Oh, I think he did mean the following:

"Here are three factors. Those factors dovetail with how excited I get about a restaurant. Therefore, my stars, which are predicated upon those factors, dovetail with my excitement level."

What he didn't say (or mean) was: "I pick my stars based on my excitement over the restaurant."

"What Bruni wrote was sloppy, and not really well thought out. Bruni is a man of the people; he doesn't write with tortured logic that you need to be a lawyer to parse."

Actually that's exactly why his words do need to be parsed. If he wrote like a lawyer there wouldn't be a problem.

[TAPrice]

If he wrote like a lawyer there wouldn't be a problem.

←

No, if he wrote like a lawyer it would be another kind of problem.

Carry on.

[Nathan]

Todd: Agreed.

[larrylee]

Someone could... ask Bruni what he meant.

[oakapple]

"Here are three factors. Those factors dovetail with how excited I get about a restaurant. Therefore, my stars, which are predicated upon those factors, dovetail with my excitement level."

←

Even on that understanding, his actual ratings can't be squared with the statement. As I and others have noted, he seemed a lot more excited about Spicy & Tasty than Alain Ducasse, but he gave two to the former and three to the latter. Assuming he means what he writes, the stars do not dovetail with his excitement level.

[Pan]

Let's dial this back a little. Do I understand correctly that some of you want "objective" reviews? If so, hire a robot. Human beings have subjective opinions. When I read people posting in Chowhound that Skyway's food is "bland," and I disagree with them, based on my own palate and experience of eating Malaysian food in Malaysia, does that mean they are objectively wrong and I am objectively right? Nope. I may not even be more knowledgeable about Malaysian food than some of the objectors, and it's possible that because I'm a regular customer, the restaurant may make my food spicier. But none of these possibilities change my opinion, because I don't know whether the objectors' food is in fact bland or whether they're just looking for some macho "extreme chili" nonsense, for instance, but I do know what the food I am eating tastes like to me.

As for "amenities": Since when did a two-star rating denote the presence of a particular set of amenities other than perhaps some decor and reasonably maintained restrooms, both of which Spicy & Tasty has? Do you seriously think that the "average person" has a preconceived notion that all two-star restaurants have a coat check or valet parking? Is there some reason you think that fictional "average person" believes that - did you ask Mr. or Mrs. Average that question?

When we have these kinds of discussions, I sometimes wonder about the name of this website. Is this truly eGullet, or is it really eAmenities? Isn't it exactly proper for the quality of the food to be the most relevant criterion in any restaurant review that's designed to be useful to people who eat out mainly to experience great food? Or are you again seeking to serve Mr. Average, who allegedly is not a gourmet, and therefore someone I'd think we wouldn't be spending lots of time concerning ourselves with? I mean, let's face it, most people prefer McDonalds, and a much smaller segment of the population goes to restaurants to see and be seen and not for the food. I wouldn't think we'd want to associate ourselves any more (or less) with ignorant snobs than with poor chain patrons. More importantly, I doubt that New York Times reviews are directed at the small number of ignorant snobs, but rather, at that segment of their readership that cares enough about food to be interested in restaurants largely for that reason. We all know that the readership of the New York Times itself and their Dining & Wine section in particular does NOT constitute a cross-section of average people. They are wealthier on average, more highly educated, and more interested in events outside their own lives than most people. Can't we presume the Dining & Wine readers are more knowledgeable about and interested in food and restaurants than the "average person"?

I think it's fair to add that if we were talking about a 4-star or even 3-star restaurant, I'd be taking a different tack. I _do_ think that that number of stars implies a greater degree of luxury. I don't agree that two stars do, and despite Bryan Miller's objections, there seems to be plenty of precedent for non-luxe restaurants to get two stars - which the "average" reader of the Times would probably take to mean what the Times says it means:

** Very good

Ratings reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.

Would any of you like to argue that Spicy & Tasty is not "very good," taking into consideration food, ambience, service, and price? Because if you agree, what are we arguing about?

Edited December 1, 2006 by Pan (log)

[Nathan]

oakapple:

"Even on that understanding, his actual ratings can't be squared with the statement."

As I already noted, this is both true and irrelevant to the argument.

Pan: Word.

[Sneakeater]

Re: "Objective" reviews.

There's subjectivity, and then there's subjectivity. To be a responsible critic, I think you have to take to into account existing expectations, standards, etc. That doesn't mean your criticism is "objective" -- just that it isn't purely (and self-indulgently) subjective.

Gaf once quoted someone he knew as saying, "You can like Salieri more than Mozart, but you can't claim that Salieri is better than Mozart." I think that captures it exactly.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

Sneakeater, I agree.

[Pan]

Re:  "Objective" reviews.

There's subjectivity, and then there's subjectivity.  To be a responsible critic, I think you have to take to into account existing expectations, standards, etc.  That doesn't mean your criticism is "objective" -- just that it isn't purely (and self-indulgently) subjective.

Gaf once quoted someone he knew as saying, "You can like Salieri more than Mozart, but you can't claim that Salieri is better than Mozart."  I think that captures it exactly.

←

We'll have to talk about modern composers in person someday, because I completely and totally unapologetically reject much of the current "received wisdom" about them (artists, too). But I get your point.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Pan (log)

[oakapple]

oakapple:

"Even on that understanding, his actual ratings can't be squared with the statement."

As I already noted, this is both true and irrelevant to the argument.

←

In that case, I've entirely lost track of what the "argument" is.

[Nathan]

oakapple:

I can't imagine why

I don't think anyone is arguing that Bruni's statement was logically sound or that it actually reflects they way he rates restaurants.

We were arguing over what he actually said, not over whether what he said was accurate.

Cheez. I need a life.

[Sneakeater]

We'll have to talk about modern composers in person someday, because I completely and totally unapologetically reject much of the current "received wisdom" about them (artists, too). But I get your point.

←

Putting our apparent disagreement about, let's say, Ligeti aside, I think the best way to put what I'm trying to say is the following:

If your answers to the questions "what is the best restaurant in New York?" and "what is your favorite restaurant in New York?" aren't different, you probably are being too purely subjective to be good critic.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Pan]

We'll have to talk about modern composers in person someday, because I completely and totally unapologetically reject much of the current "received wisdom" about them (artists, too). But I get your point.

←

Putting our apparent disagreement about "modern" composers aside, I think the best way to put what I'm trying to say is the following:

If your answers to the questions "what is the best restaurant in New York?" and "what is your favorite restaurant in New York?" aren't different, you probably are being too purely subjective to be good critic.

←

I disagree. You can easily believe that your favorite restaurant is in fact the best. Would it bother you if a critic's favorite restaurant in New York were, say, Alain Ducasse or Per Se, and that critic also believed that was the best restaurant in New York?

And why are you presuming we disagree on modern composers? Does that mean you uncritically accept the current "received wisdom," rather than having your own opinion? Part of the problem here is that a good critic should mold rather than receive opinions, don't you think?

[Edit: I don't know what the "received wisdom" on Ligeti is, but I consider him a very good composer. My disagreement is more with critical opinions on minimalism and conservative modernist composers like Copland, Menotti, Britten, et al., and also with the current animus against the Second Vienna School. To a lesser extent, I think that Bruckner, Shostakovich, and Sibelius, though all more or less worthwhile composers, are somewhat overrated, and most of the great French composers are grossly underrated in the U.S., while I consider Messiaen somewhat overrated. Most of these are frankly subjective opinions, having to do with my taste rather than things I can categorize, though there are some exceptions to this having to do with the degree of repetitiveness and melodic interest in some people's works.]

Edited December 1, 2006 by Pan (log)

[Sneakeater]

** Very good

Ratings reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.

Would any of you like to argue that Spicy & Tasty is not "very good," taking into consideration food, ambience, service, and price? Because if you agree, what are we arguing about?

←

BTW, FWIW, I'd like to state my total agreement with this.

[Sneakeater]

We'll have to talk about modern composers in person someday, because I completely and totally unapologetically reject much of the current "received wisdom" about them (artists, too). But I get your point.

←

Putting our apparent disagreement about "modern" composers aside, I think the best way to put what I'm trying to say is the following:

If your answers to the questions "what is the best restaurant in New York?" and "what is your favorite restaurant in New York?" aren't different, you probably are being too purely subjective to be good critic.

←

I disagree. You can easily believe that your favorite restaurant is in fact the best. Would it bother you if a critic's favorite restaurant in New York were, say, Alain Ducasse or Per Se, and that critic also believed that was the best restaurant in New York?

And why are you presuming we disagree on modern composers? Does that mean you uncritically accept the current "received wisdom," rather than having your own opinion? Part of the problem here is that a good critic should mold rather than receive opinions, don't you think?

←

First paragraph: I think that confluence would be total happenstance. Indeed, because of the nature of experience, I think it would be unlikely that the criteria for "best" and "favorite" restaurants would be the same. I mean, how many people are going to list as their "favorite" spot someplace that only serves multi-course multi-hour meals that you have to concentrate on to appreciate? (Same with music. My "favorite" composer is probably Schubert or maybe -- you're never going to take me seriously again -- Poulenc. But the very things that make them my "favorites" mean, to me, that they aren't as "great" as others whose work is more demanding or even just [i'm thinking mainly about Schubert here] better-put-together. Don't get me wrong. I'm not being a puritan. I'm not arguing that the "best" work has to be painful. I'm just saying that the criteria for "favorite" and "best" are often different, and that the kind of comfort level that often makes something your "favorite" can rule out its being the "best.")

Second paragraph -- Of course I agree. But on the other hand, if someone just doesn't like, say, atonal music -- and I'm not saying you don't; I'm sure your beef is more with stuff like minimalism and post-modernism -- that dislike alone wouldn't, to me, justify his dismissing, say, Boulez out of hand as a "bad" composer.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

And also, you have to know yourself. Sometimes there's something in a restaurant or a composer that just simply appeals to you. (Like Schubert: I just like the way he sounds.) But that very personal response doesn't make that favorite the "best". I think you have to be self-aware enough to realize that.

As I said, if your favorite is also what you would consider "the best", it seems to me that it would be almost a total coincidence.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Pan]

We'll have to talk about modern composers in person someday, because I completely and totally unapologetically reject much of the current "received wisdom" about them (artists, too). But I get your point.

←

Putting our apparent disagreement about "modern" composers aside, I think the best way to put what I'm trying to say is the following:

If your answers to the questions "what is the best restaurant in New York?" and "what is your favorite restaurant in New York?" aren't different, you probably are being too purely subjective to be good critic.

←

I disagree. You can easily believe that your favorite restaurant is in fact the best. Would it bother you if a critic's favorite restaurant in New York were, say, Alain Ducasse or Per Se, and that critic also believed that was the best restaurant in New York?

And why are you presuming we disagree on modern composers? Does that mean you uncritically accept the current "received wisdom," rather than having your own opinion? Part of the problem here is that a good critic should mold rather than receive opinions, don't you think?

←

First paragraph: I think that confluence would be total happenstance. Indeed, because of the nature of experience, I think it would be unlikely that the criteria for "best" and "favorite" restaurants would be the same. I mean, how many people are going to list as their "favorite" spot someplace that only serves multi-course multi-hour meals that you have to concentrate on to appreciate? (Same with music. My "favorite" composer is probably Schubert or maybe -- you're never going to take me seriously again -- Poulenc. But the very things that make them my "favorites" mean, to me, that they aren't as "great" as others whose work is more demanding or even just [i'm thinking mainly about Schubert here] better-put-together. Don't get me wrong. I'm not being a puritan. I'm not arguing that the "best" work has to be painful. I'm just saying that the criteria for "favorite" and "best" are often different, and that the kind of comfort level that often makes something your "favorite" can rule out its being the "best.")

Second paragraph -- Of course I agree. But on the other hand, if someone just doesn't like, say, atonal music -- and I'm not saying you don't; I'm sure your beef is more with stuff like minimalism and post-modernism -- that dislike alone wouldn't, to me, justify his dismissing, say, Boulez out of hand as a "bad" composer.

←

There are different issues here. Competence is a different question from quality of content. I think Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Dallapiccola, and Eissler were great composers. I think that Boulez is a great musician (great conductor) and a very knowledgeable and competent composer, but I do not love his music and tend to consider it too long for his material (a problem many less-than-great composers have, but a subjective determination by the listener).

As for Schubert, I _do_ think he is one of the all-time great composers. Why? Hard to say. I think much of his music is very meaningful and colorful (great master of tonal inflections and unexpected modulations), he had one of the greatest melodic gifts, and he was an innovative master of form (compensating for a lack of great contrapuntal fluency by using a process of continuous development and modulation in his Development sections, for example). His 9th Symphony is one of the great monumental symphonies in the literature, and he was probably the greatest of all songwriters (or at least post-madrigal or post-Baroque songwriters).

Poulenc was also a master of meaningful songs, which is where I think he was at his greatest. He also was a master of musical irony and jokes. I don't think he's one of the greatest composers of all time, but I certainly like some of his music, when interpreted with a proper degree of whimsy or/and understated pathos. (You should come and hear me play his Sonata for Flute and Piano in February.)

What analogies, if any, can we make with restaurant reviewing or food writing, generally? Well, there is much competent food, but how much of it is truly inspired? How do we separate the Brahmses from the Bruckners, the Shapeys from the Boulezes? And aren't those subjective categories?

[Sneakeater]

I'm not saying that Poulenc isn't good, much less that Schubert isn't great. I'm just saying that just because I listen to as much Poulenc as Bach, it doesn't mean I'd ever say that Poulenc is as good as Bach. And just because I often feel more like listening to Schubert than Beethoven, it doesn't mean I'd say that Schubert is better than Beethoven.

There's my purely subjective response, and my other response. I don't know what to call it. "Objective/subjective"?

Restaurant parallels: even if I had all the money in the world, I think I'd still prefer going to Blaue Gans over Per Se. But I'd never argue that Blaue Gans is "better", much less "best". Even among places I can readily afford (so price isn't the determining factor), I could never say that Franny's is the "best" of them. It's just the one I enjoy gong to most. I.e., my "favorite".

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Pan]

I'm not saying that Poulenc isn't good, much less that Schubert isn't great.  I'm just saying that just because I listen to as much Poulenc as Bach, it doesn't mean I'd ever say that Poulenc is as good as Bach.  And just because I often feel more like listening to Schubert than Beethoven, it doesn't mean I'd say that Schubert is better than Beethoven.

There's my purely subjective response, and my other response.  I don't know what to call it. "Objective/subjective"?

Restaurant parallels:  even if I had all the money in the world, I think I'd still prefer going to Blaue Gans over Per Se.  But I'd never argue that Blaue Gans is "better", much less "best".  Even among places I can readily afford (so price isn't the determining factor), I could never say that Franny's is the "best" of them.  It's just the one I enjoy gong to most.  I.e., my "favorite".

←

I definitely take your point here. But is it possible that even so, your opinions about what is best are STILL subjective? I mean, what are your bases for determining that something is great? Because others say it's great, or because you have certain criteria about what constitutes greatness? [i write "you," but I could ask anyone including myself this question.]

Edited December 1, 2006 by Pan (log)

[Sneakeater]

I don't know what to say, other than that they're less subjective.

[Sneakeater]

I think that's it. I think my criteria for determining "greatness" are more objective than my purely subjective responses that determine what I particularly like.

And, yeah, part of it is that they're received.

Obviously I haven't thought this completely through yet.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Geez, I'm sorry I brought it up.

Just two comments:

From 1973 on, the stars definition always specifies that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction." Wouldn't you read as saying subjectivity must be understood to be implicit in the ratings, with no pretence otherwise? In fact, when Hess was critic, the definition actually says, "based on the author's subjective judgment of quality. . ."

Second, wouldn't you kind of think that, despite the tenor of the reviews, and despite the flaws and strengths he cites, Bruni would if given a choice rather eat at ADNY than Spicy and Tasty?

[Sneakeater]

Let me do something odd and actually get back on to topic.

One problem many of us have had with Bruni is that, too often, he seems to go off solely on his own subjective response to places and doesn't try to objectively think how they stack up in the general world of restaurants, according to generally-applicable criteria that go beyond how much he personally liked (or was "excited" by) the meal.

I mean, The Modern. He apparently just didn't like it that much. But looking at it objectively, applying general criteria of what makes a restaurant good as opposed to simply noting your own personal responses, how is it not a three-star restaurant? Really, how is ADNY not a four-star?

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

(Obligatory notation that just because I made the foregoing argument, that doesn't mean that I think the star system has any validity.)