Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Nathan]

Diner's Journal has not been published in almost a year.

[Fat Guy]

They switched to a "Diner's Journal" blog format, but clearly they're spending enough money already to support a third review.

[ned]

NOTE TO EATER:

What's so fucking funny about this thread?

←

Bruniology--the study of Bruni--is an inherently hilarious activity.

[oakapple]

They switched to a "Diner's Journal" blog format, but clearly they're spending enough money already to support a third review.

←

For the two reviews printed in the newspaper, the critic (Bruni or Meehan) pays multiple visits to the restaurant. The blog posts are usually based on one visit, so they really aren't proper reviews. Edited November 30, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Cost is just not the issue here. The same resources they've already committed could easily be reorganized -- and a very minor reorganization it would be -- to allow a third review of a modestly priced restaurant. If that's what they wanted to do, they could do it no problem. I doubt it is what they want to do, but I think it would help bring the system in line with current dining reality.

[Sneakeater]

- The four-star Chinese restaurants of old offered four-star amenities.

←

I'm sure you know this, but just in case it isn't obvious to all possible readers, I don't think anyone is arguing that a restaurant lacking "four-star amenities" should get four stars. The argument is that restaurants with excellent food should be able to get two stars, even if they lack amenities.

[Nathan]

- The four-star Chinese restaurants of old offered four-star amenities.

←

I'm sure you know this, but just in case it isn't obvious to all possible readers, I don't think anyone is arguing that a restaurant lacking "four-star amenities" should get four stars. The argument is that restaurants with excellent food should be able to get two stars, even if they lack amenities.

←

Indeed. my exact formulation was: give them three stars for food. deduct two for amenities, add one for price. end up at two.

[Fat Guy]

- The four-star Chinese restaurants of old offered four-star amenities.

←

I'm sure you know this, but just in case it isn't obvious to all possible readers, I don't think anyone is arguing that a restaurant lacking "four-star amenities" should get four stars. The argument is that restaurants with excellent food should be able to get two stars, even if they lack amenities.

←

It's not just the argument, it's descriptive of current reality. However, what Bryan Miller (and a lot of other folks who used to find more value in the star system) would likely say is that restaurants with awesome food but no real amenities should get rave reviews and no stars. I think that system makes more sense than the "give them three stars for food. deduct two for amenities, add one for price. end up at two" system that has, to evoke the tired example, the Modern and Sripraphai rated the same.

[Nathan]

I fail to see why that's a problem.

Unlike some, I consider the quality of the food to be more important than the amenities (although I wouldn't go as far as Rich in that respect).

And I daresay that the average NY Times food reader will assume that a restaurant with no stars has crappy food.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

This is more in the nature of a random thought than anything approaching an incisive comment, but to me much more damage is done to the "classic" star system by giving two stars to neighborhood places like Dumont and Red Cat and even my beloved Little Owl than by occassionally giving two stars to a really stellar but unprepossessing Asian place. I agree that for these Asian reviews to have any force, they have to be fairly rare. But to me, they have a real impact. Giving one of these places two stars means, "here's a place that of its type is really outstanding: pay attention to it, this food is really extraordinary." So to me, the "three-star food, docked two stars for ambiance and service, up one star for price" calculus seems not only unconfusing, but intuitive.

What confuses me is the calculus by which restaurants doing a very good job at something ordinary routinely get boosted to two stars because they're either or both of relatively inexpensive or in offbeat or picturesque neighborhoods.

I guess what I'm saying is that Sripraphai and the Modern having the same rating doesn't confuse me at all (except for the fact that I think the Modern deserves three stars on its own merits). What confuses me is the Modern and Dumont having the same rating.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

And I daresay that the average NY Times food reader will assume that a restaurant with no stars has crappy food.

←

I think this is absolutely true. You could have the most positive no-star "starred" review in the world, and I think most readers would STILL avoid the place.

[Fat Guy]

So nobody goes to the restaurants reviewed in "$25 and Under"?

[Sneakeater]

That's different. Those aren't no-star "star" reviews. (If that's what you meant in the post we were commenting on -- i.e., if you meant a review that couldn't possibly get stars, as opposed to a no-star "starred" review -- I apologize for misconstruing.)

Edited November 30, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Right, when it's made clear that an entire category just isn't being considered for star ratings, nobody holds that against any restaurant in the category. It just makes things clearer, and the stars more useful. The more apples, oranges and other fruits you try to rate on the same scale, the less useful the scale becomes. If you have a tailor-made system for reviewing each type of fruit, it's more useful.

[Sneakeater]

But in that case, here's the problem I have with that.

The "$25 and Under" column can't work the way you're proposing. It can never accomodate the few really exceptional cheap restaurants at the Sripraphai level.

Because most of the restaurants reviewed in "$25 and Under" are no more than good for what they are. And properly so. As I said above, I think that in fact that's the purpose that "$25 and Under" serves: to alert you to good cheap places that deserve patronage at their price but whose food wouldn't warrant a star.

If you were to include the truly great cheap places in "$25 and Under", then the only way to communicate their relative quality vis-a-vis most of the places reviewed there would be to damn most places with faint praise. To me, that would destroy the usefulness of the column. When I read something there now giving high praise to a place like Via Emilia, I know that I should still not expect anything special from it. I don't know if it would be possible to convey the absolute excellence of a place like Sripraphai in that context, without giving most of the review subjects the same indifferent treatment they'd receive in a "starred" review. I.e., you'd be back to the problem that, I believe, the "$25 and Under" column was designed to solve.

Well, you might say, there is a way: by instituting a second-tier star system, as New York Magazine has done. I have to say that I'm about as derisive of that option as Eater.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Perhaps it may be clearer to say that we may be having a disagreement about the need that the "$25 and Under" column best serves.

You appear to think that it's to highlight the cheap places that have truly superb food but rudimentary ambiance and service. I think that those rare places have a place in the star system.

To me, the best use of "$25 and Under" is to give a fair appraisal to places that are worthwhile values, but which wouldn't warrant a star and so would be dismissed by a "starred" review. Like the difference between the Freeman's "$25 and Under" review and the Freeman's "starred" review.

And, as I tried to explain above, I think that relegating the really great cheap places to "$25 and Under", instead of letting them get their due in starred reviews, would end up doing the same disservice to the more ordinary kind of cheap places as not having a "$25 and Under" column at all. The oridnarily good cheap places can't compete with the really great cheap places. But there aren't enough really great cheap places to fill the column. (Especially if you're going to include a substantial number of inexpensive mainstream restaurants, and not turn it exclusively into a Sietsema/Chowhound-type search for good outerborough ethnic joints.) So the "$25 and Under" critics would have to end up being as halfhearted in their praise of most of the inexpensive places as the lead-review writer would be.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[larrylee]

Strangely enough, this might be one area in which Zagat ratings are useful. A place might rate in the high 20's for food but in the low teens for decor. That says more to me than the Times' fuzzy explanation (below). If only Zagat had something useful to say, but I digress.

WHAT THE STARS MEAN:

(None) Poor to satisfactory

* Good

** Very good

*** Excellent

**** Extraordinary

Ratings reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration. Menu listings and prices are subject to change.

[oakapple]

However, what Bryan Miller (and a lot of other folks who used to find more value in the star system) would likely say is that restaurants with awesome food but no real amenities should get rave reviews and no stars. I think that system makes more sense than the "give them three stars for food. deduct two for amenities, add one for price. end up at two" system that has, to evoke the tired example, the Modern and Sripraphai rated the same.

←

Maybe Bryan Miller said that. But in recent times, I can't think of a case where the principal critic wrote a rave zero-star review. Zero stars nowadays means "not good." Obviously the $25&under critic can write a rave zero-star review. But all of that critic's reviews are zero stars.

Unlike some, I consider the quality of the food to be more important than the amenities (although I wouldn't go as far as Rich in that respect).

←

I haven't found anyone yet who thinks amenities are more important than food. But there are a lot of people for amenities are relevant. I'm not taking my girlfriend to Spicy & Tasty for Valentine's Day, although she does love spicy Asian food.

[Sneakeater]

Right, when it's made clear that an entire category just isn't being considered for star ratings, nobody holds that against any restaurant in the category. It just makes things clearer, and the stars more useful.

←

I guess the short way to say what I've been trying to say in incredibly wordy fashion is that I, myself, would find it more confusing for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as Freeman's or Via Emila than I do for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as The Modern.

[rich]

Right, when it's made clear that an entire category just isn't being considered for star ratings, nobody holds that against any restaurant in the category. It just makes things clearer, and the stars more useful.

←

I guess the short way to say what I've been trying to say in incredibly wordy fashion is that I, myself, would find it more confusing for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as Freeman's or Via Emila than I do for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as The Modern.

←

I see your point SE, but that's you or me. The general public, in my opinion, would see it differently and the Times is writing for the public, not the foodies. We're probably the last demographic profile on their list because we likely know more about a restaurant than their own critic.

Edited November 30, 2006 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

I'll say this once more:

The Times doesn't "star" movies.

The Times doesn't "star" theatrical productions.

The Times doesn't "star" concerts and operas.

The Times doesn't "star" dance performances.

The Times doesn't "star" books.

Out of all the things it reviews -- and note that most of the above-mentioned things are recurring events, not one-offs -- the only class the Times "stars" is restaurants.

I'm sure the star system started as an attempt to ape (or to be more charitable, adapt) the Michelin system.  I still think it's a reductive consumer-oriented obstacle to any kind of serious criticism.  Serious criticism -- unlike "reviews" -- doesn't have stars.  Maybe reviews are all the Times aspires to for restaurants.  But I don't see why food should be treated as something less worthy of serious appraisal than performing arts.  And I don't see why people who read boards like this should support this kind of insulting second-class treatment.

←

The quality of the criticism depends on the insight and writing skill of the critic. Frank Bruni wouldn't start writing better reviews if the star rating were eliminated. The presence of those ratings doesn't reduce the quality of what he writes. It's patently absurd to suggest that restaurants are getting second-class treatment because they are rated, and other things are not.

I do think the stars provide a coarse hierarchy to guide the diner's selection process. There are only about 40 Broadway shows playing at a given time, and the Metropolitan Opera does only about 25 operas a season (not all playing at once), but there are 20,000 restaurants. I don't know how many of them have had a Times review at some point, but it is probably several thousand. Try sifting through all of those reviews, with no indication at all which ones the critics liked.

I would note that the $25-and-under reviews are almost instantly forgettable. Try figuring out, among the hundreds of restaurants Asimov and Meehan have reviewed, which ones they raved about. Someone with an awfully good memory would have to tell you about it. I can't remember what Meehan reviewed last week, much less a hole-in-the-wall that Asimov raved about two years ago.

By the way, the stars aren't as unique as you think. Look at this page. It lists all of the currently running Broadway plays, with check marks next to the "critics' picks." This is basically a star system with one choice instead of four—a show is a critics' pick, or it is not.

[Sneakeater]

But, as I said when NY Magazine instituted its star system, to me the "critic's pick" system actually makes more sense than stars.

"Critic's picks" just highlight shows or restaurants that are notable in one way or another. They completely avoid the problem of creating a hierarchy among things that aren't really comparable. A threadbare off-off production is just as appropriate a "critic's pick" as the most elaborate star-laden Broadway production -- and Spripraphai is just as appropriate a "critic's pick" as Le Bernadin, without any of the carping about how you can't compare the two or put them in the same category. Because they really aren't being categorized. Instead, they're being flagged as being particularly good for what they are -- and the reader is left to the text of the review (or blurb) to see what that is.

If the Times "starred" theatrical productions instead of "critic's picking" them, you'd get the same kinds of silly disputes we have about starring restaurants. Is "four stars" limited to really good productions of Shakespeare and nothing else? Can a light contemporary comedy get the same number of stars as a decent production of Long Day's Journey? Can you compare a downtown production done on the cheap with a well-financed uptown production? Does the uptown production automatically deserve more stars just because of higher production values? And on and on. And all a result of the unnecessary hierarchy established by the star system. I.e., not inherent problems that have to exist, but rather problems caused only by the use of that particular evaluative shorthand.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Leonard Kim]

FYI. I'll comment more later, when I'm not working. But here is a rundown of what the stars have "meant" over the years. Dates should be fairly close to first appearance of each description. I sure as heck can't find any long consistent period matching what FG describes (and says "had value") where people would have gotten their "long experience."

5/24/1963: Stars, when they appear, are employed as follows: one star denotes restaurants of more than routine interest; two stars denote those of superior quality, and three stars pertain to restaurants regarded as among the finest in the city.

10/30/1964: [range expanded to 4 stars] "Four stars pertain to restaurants regarded as among the fittest in the area."

9/3/1965: [the introduction of relative ratings] "The criterion is the food and service in relation to the cost of dining in any particular establishment."

5/21/1971: (Sokolov) [split ratings] The restaurants reviewed on this page on Friday are rated both for their food (four stars to none) and for their service, atmosphere and decor (four triangles to none).

6/1/1973 (Hess): [death of split rating. relative rating now considers "comparable establishments" as well as price] "The restaurants reviewed here each Friday are rated four stars to none, based on the author's subjective judg ment of quality in relation to the price of meals and the quality of comparable establishments. Roughly, one star may be translated as fair, two stars as good, three as excellent and four as superb."

1/18/1974 (Canaday): The restaurants reviewed here each Friday are rated four stars to none, based on the author's reaction to cuisine, atmosphere and price in relation to comparable establishments. [one star is now "good" and two stars "very good"]

3/8/1974 (Canaday): "I'd like to get to get a few things straight about the stars. . . A restaurant serving excellent food at high prices will get a lower rating than one serving food of the same quality at reasonable prices." [four stars is now "extraordinary"]

10/15/76 (Sheraton): These ratings are based on the reviewer's reaction to food and price in relation to comparable establishments. [i.e., no more "atmosphere." Also this is when the definition of no stars as "poor to fair" was added] "It seems appropriate to point out that that rating [one star] is a positive one, meaning good, and it is not easily come by. It has become apparent that such a rating is all too often taken as a put-down, meaning, in fact, not very good at all, so some clarification is definitely in order."

3/9/84 (Burros, between Sheraton and Miller): These ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction primarily to food, with ambience and service taken into consideration. ["Comparable establishments" removed suggesting an "absolute" rating system.]

5/9/86 (Miller): "Satisfactory" rating added. Kurumazushi gets the first "Satisfactory" rating (Sheraton before and Reichl afterwards, both gave Kurumazushi 3 stars, but this is actually not necessarily evidence that Miller treated Asian restaurants differently than his colleagues.)

The stars description doesn't change after this I believe. The biggest change implemented by Reichl is the one review/one restaurant policy. In my opinion, the biggest effect of this is on re-reviews. Before Reichl, many restaurants were re-reviewed every three years or so, and some even more frequently than that. On the other hand, a Grimes or Bruni re-review is more on the order of 10 years since the last review. Reichl, as I've mentioned before, was the most generous with her star ratings, giving more 2 and 3 star ratings than any other critic.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Fat Guy]

That's a pretty interesting chronicle of grade (aka star) inflation in action, and I should know better than to try to argue against grade inflation -- I'm not sure anybody has ever won that argument.

Sheraton's comment in particular is telling: "It seems appropriate to point out that that rating [one star] is a positive one, meaning good, and it is not easily come by. It has become apparent that such a rating is all too often taken as a put-down, meaning, in fact, not very good at all, so some clarification is definitely in order."

[oakapple]

Just when we thought it was impossible for Leonard Kim to amaze us further, he's done it again!!

Sheraton's comment in particular is telling: "It seems appropriate to point out that that rating [one star] is a positive one, meaning good, and it is not easily come by. It has become apparent that such a rating is all too often taken as a put-down, meaning, in fact, not very good at all, so some clarification is definitely in order."

←

I wonder if Mimi actually lived by that. We all know that, for a restaurant built for three stars, one absolutely is a put-down. We also know that the reviews of such restaurants are usually not very enthusiastic, even if one star technically means "good."

This has certainly happened plenty in the Bruni era—one and two star reviews that don't read like "good" or "very good." I would assume Mimi did it too, when reviewing a fancy restaurant that didn't meet the grade, but wasn't quite bad enough to deserve zero.

Back to you, Leonard.

Edited November 30, 2006 by oakapple (log)