Old Dining vs. New Dining

[chefette]

Quote - Wilfrid: "Example: a wonderful established repertoire of dishes gets consigned to history along with stuffy maitre d's and evening dress."

Soooooo sad. It is sad to see that such a transition really has ocurred in the world. Glamour and art and taste and high society just images in books and movies. I think this is a factor of business rearing its ugly head and forcing true love and art to live within the confines of budgets and rules.

1- I think the value of efficiency and business have risen

2- Regulations, insurance, benefits, etc take their toll forcing owners to consider risk and protect themselves against it

3- The costs of ownership have risen as well as potential rewards leading to a new class of owner - the investor

4- The goals of investors are profit - not art

5- Art and craft have been compromised, packaged and commodified

6- Attempts to open this world to a wider audience entail compromises in atmosphere and attire of patrons (cocktail dresses and dinner jackets not required, ties not required, jackets not required, casual attire is perfectly acceptable - but this is a style issue that impacts every aspect of life)

I think we should all be thinking that yes, we actually DO like the idea of having a chance to spend time in this type of venue, so how does one (as a consumer) encourage and support the industry to let us have it. And, if it is provided, how many of us could actually afford it? It seems to me that Ducasse offers a truly incredible dining experience that lets the diner enjoy a slice of life

so to speak. Of course this is provided at quite an astronomical price.

[Jonathan Day]

There are elements of the "old dining" that I don't miss at all: stuffiness, pretentious waiters and menus, uncomfortable rooms, high prices. John and Karen Hess's The Taste of America pillories some of the faux-French high priced joints that you found in American cities in the 1950s and 1960s; Elizabeth David and Richard Olney had similarly scathing words about London restaurants going up to the early 1980s.

Some of this "bad old dining" survives, often with poor quality food and high prices. Without dissenting at all from Robert's and Steve Klc's ideas, I have had desserts from dessert carts that don't measure up: faded, mushy textures, and so on.

We need to bring back (find?) the best of the "old dining" while avoiding the worst of it.

I could not agree more on the importance of a "total experience". Some writers outline a hierarchy of ascending added value: (1) commodities; (2) products; (3) services; (4) experiences; (5) transformation. The latter refers to an experience that fundamentally changes the customer's point of view, as opposed to just entertaining the customer.

For me, Chez Panisse hit this 5th level. I was a fundamentally different person when I walked out of that restaurant, in a way that has lasted a long time. Allard and the Grand Vefour had a similar impact, some years later. Of course, transformation gets harder to bring about over time and as the customer gains experience. The meal we had at the Bastide St Antoine (Chibois) came close. I don't think this was because of a deficit in their cookery or service, but because I've been to many fine restaurants since those early transformational experiences.

[cabrales]

robert -- To the extent there are indications of a lower quality of service at L'Astrance and Blue Hill in your initial post, I would strongly disagree.

It might be the case that one doesn't have the same dining room team member-to-guest ratio as was the case decades ago, but my own observations are of an efficient and professional team at each place. Why does one need dozens of people standing idly by, when a smaller and more efficient team would be sufficient? So long as a high level of service is provided (which I believe is clearly the case from my meals at L'Astrance in particular, and also at BH), and the cuisine is presented appropriately, there is not necessarily a justification for a larger team. In addition, the number of people comprising the dining room team would appear to be only one of the determinants of its capabilities relative to service -- the individual qualities of the persons within that team, and their ability to coordinate are also significant.

Furthermore, what is inappropriate with restaurants focusing on profits, like any other commercial endeavor intent on long-term survival and generation of returns for those who have invested in it? Seeking profit is not incompatible with a chef's preparing memorable cuisine and being focused on diners' receipt of fulfillment. (We are obviously not speaking of cuisiniers that "cut corners" with quality, preparation, etc.) If it is profit-maximizing for a restaurant to charge higher prices, why should the facility not do so? I don't think it's honorable for a chef to take losses; he may choose to do so, but it should not be expected of it. And an unwillingness to accept losses should not be viewed as a negative factor. (NB: In my mind and as discussed on the board, the prices at both L'Astrance and BH are very reasonable, relative to the quality of the cuisine furnished)

I find that many restaurants nowadays are willing to accommodate their clients. There is often a spirit of generosity -- I am frequently offered additional dishes or other goodies. In the US recently, items I have received gratuit included: Radius (soft shell crab dish and dessert wine), Ilo (dessert wine), one Bouley visit (several desserts and dessert wine), another Bouley visit (countless goodies), Citarella (second Yosses dessert), Fleur de Sel (sampling of other wines by the glass not ordered) and Fiamma Osteria (dessert after having ordered just one egg brunch dish). In France, the gratuit situation is evern better.

Note I am in no position to compare the Old Dining to the New Dining, not having been a restaurant diner during the heyday of the Old Dining. However, to the extent BH and L'Astrance could be viewed as examples of the New Dining (and I am unclear they should be so framed), I do not see the detriments of New Dining to be severe.

[LaNiña]

In your experience, JD, what are the distinctions, between stuffiness and formality, pretension and politesse?

[Steve Klc]

JD--no dissent taken. You certainly have had poor desserts off a trolley--but not because the form--the vehicle--has been supplanted or superceded but because of poor effort, lack of requisite skills and training, or poor attention to detail. You certainly must have poor plated desserts more often than you have had poor desserts off a trolley, no? I've had so many simple, simplistic or underwhelming plated desserts that it's been as if I could only read John Thorne over and over again.

Even one of the current examples I wrote about--L'Absinthe in NYC--under-performed. My pastry chef wife and I liked very few of the offerrings. We had no mental block about their retro form--but the execution of these traditional items was not as good or as flavorful as it should have been. We appreciated the effort, the generosity and the impeccable service which this "old style" dining opportunity presented--but if the product ultimately underwhelms, what have you really gained after longing for it? At L'Absinthe there was no where near the level of skill and interest applied to the desserts as to the cuisine and it showed. With an equivalent effort--Robert Brown could perhaps find the precise experience he seeks.

And that brings us back to the "total experience" which Macrosan, Robert S, chefette, JD, Robert and others have longed for from what is seen as old style dining.

Now, with the trolleys by Eric at Bayards and with Robert formerly at Le Bec-Fin--a diner wouldn't be faced with this conundrum.

[Jonathan Day]

In your experience, JD, what are the distinctions, between stuffiness and formality, pretension and politesse?

A challenging question, Nina.

Examples of stuffiness: a table so crowded with wine glasses (no matter what wines the customer chooses) that there's no room to manoeuvre. A waiter who icily deigns to approve (or not) the customer's choices. Menus written in type fonts that's so swirly they are illegible. Enormous, heavy, leather-bound menus and wine lists.

Pretension: frilly paper handles on legs of overcooked lamb chops. Waiters who swoop around tables brandishing enormous pepper grinders. Elaborate garnishes that add nothing to the taste of a dish. Foul-tasting sorbets served in swans carved out of ice. Maraschino cherries on desserts. Plates served under cloches, which are then whisked away by teams of waiters...but the plates and food on them are cold.

These examples aren't working that well. At some level it's like obscenity: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Mind you, I am not claiming objectivity (!!) in these assessments....these are just a few of my less-than-favourite things.

[LaNiña]

I suppose my question arose because I hear (not from you, mind you) so many people I know say things about "stuffy" restaurants, when what I think they really mean is that they're uncomfortable with formality, and perhaps even elegance.

Also, someone's unfamiliarity with the conventions of manners in the context of fine dining tends to make a person defensive, and therefore the place gets declared to be stuffy or pretentious, when what they really feel is their own discomfort at feeling out of place.

With this crowd, I think we could probably separate the issues, which seemed interesting to me.

[jordyn]

I'm obviously a product of my environment, having only started to eat at "good" restaurants in the second half of the 90's. Having said that, I like the New Dining. I find it more interesting to see what a chef will consider to be a meal rather than a list of appetizers and entrees. I find that having a smaller but sufficient number of staff hanging around makes for a more comfortable dining experience. The times I've been to one of the few remaining palaces of the Old Dining, I've found them a bit cold and more stiff than suits my taste.

Also, while I don't know enough to speak to the potential loss of a repetoire of great dishes, I have found that many of the restaurants I am familiar with that are perhaps most representative of the New Dining seem to be the most accomodating of special requests, alterations or wholesale replacements of the menu, whether it is theoretically set or not. In the New Dining, the chef has not stopped cooking for the benefit and delight of the customer, although he or she will gladly put together a complete meal for you prefer to trust their judgment about the composition of the meal.

Perhaps as the New Dining evolves, we will see menus at good restaurants start to resemble the repetoires of dance companies. When you go to a dance performance, you don't get the same choices available every night, but eventually quality older items are served up again, often in conjunction with new ones as well. The dishes of days gone by do not need to be abandoned if they are not served every night, but can return from time to time to invigorate the menu. Some classics may be so good that they are almost always available (in dance, this is something like Ailey's "Revelations"; in food, something like Thomas Keller's "ice cream cone" of salmon tartare), while others will be on and off the menu as the season and the rest of the menu dictates.

[Jonathan Day]

Furthermore, what is inappropriate with restaurants focusing on profits, like any other commercial endeavor intent on long-term survival and generation of returns for those who have invested in it?  Seeking profit is not incompatible with a chef's preparing memorable cuisine and being focused on diners' receipt of fulfillment. (We are obviously not speaking of cuisiniers that "cut corners" with quality, preparation, etc.) If it is profit-maximizing for a restaurant to charge higher prices, why should the facility not do so?  I don't think it's honorable for a chef to take losses; he may choose to do so, but it should not be expected of it. And an unwillingness to accept losses should not be viewed as a negative factor.

Please believe me when I say that I have nothing against profits! The issue is how to get them. And here the answer is usually to focus people on other goals than profit.

If a chef spent all her time telling the brigade to worry about food costs, or discussing the P&L, or thinking about how to cut one more waiter, or pushing waiters to "sell" expensive dishes, the quality of the total experience (as discussed elsewhere in this thread) would suffer. Eventually the margins would go away. I, at least, would not feel good if a waiter came up to my table and said, "Hello, I'm Nigel, your waiter, and my goal is to maximise shareholder value." This sounds like a carcicature, but too often Nigel communicates exactly this goal without saying so.

Of course no business should be expected to accept losses, restaurants included. As you say, some may choose to accept temporary losses in order to build presence in a market, or win over a recalcitrant customer.

On pricing, I would be the last to recommend price controls. Competition has a way of limiting price-gouging. There is a lot of science available to tell firms how to price more effectively, e.g. charging customers more for the things that they are willing to pay for, eliminating "cross-subsidies", and so on. Carried to an extreme, precise pricing can have negative consequences, as with the cheese service priced by the slice.

[Jinmyo]

Nina, I agree that formality is an important aspect of certain dining (and other) experiences. When this is at best, it is really just a matter of having enough respect for oneself, the environment, others, and the experience to want to allow space for everything to unfold vividly. Casualness is sometimes cowardly, a self-involved blurring and turning away.

[LaNiña]

Oh, Jin where were you when I was tarred and feather on CH?

[Jinmyo]

Nina, on eGullet, of course. With all of the cool kidz, hanging out on the balic bio thread.

[LaNiña]

Hey, I was always a late bloomer.

[Jonathan Day]

many people I know say things about "stuffy" restaurants, when what I think they really mean is that they're uncomfortable with formality, and perhaps even elegance.  

Also, someone's unfamiliarity with the conventions of manners in the context of fine dining tends to make a person defensive, and therefore the place gets declared to be stuffy or pretentious, when what they really feel is their own discomfort at feeling out of place.

Elegance and formality can add a lot to a dining experience. The waiter at Chez Panisse, those many years ago, was perfectly dressed (black tie) and exquisitely polite. That made the evening even more special.

Some of the best dinners I have enjoyed have been black or white tie events in small groups. And I far prefer being called "sir" or "monsieur" by a waiter than being put on a first-name basis by someone I don't know.

For me the goal is to have setting (including the guests) and cuisine complement one another, rather than elegance (or a bad imitation of it) layered on top of bad cuisine.

Jinmyo's comment (which I hadn't seen when I started posting this) says all this, and more, in fewer words.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert - Sorry it took me so long to respond here but they had me drowning on the Cheap Eats thread. Finally I can come up for some air. First of all, that was a lovely post. I know where you're coming from but I think asking for it to return is like waiting for the next Miles Davis to come along. It ain't happening. And before I get to the heart of the post, I'm in the dessert cart camp. I'm personally disappointed with most plated desserts. I'm much happier with the melange you get from a cart plus, I find the whole cart experience to be celebratory. And you get to taste everything too.

But getting to the heart of your post is another thing. I need to ruminate for awhile and maybe I'll try to comment later. But my initial instinct is to say that what makes haute cuisine different today than the old days is that todays chefs need to be phenomenons in order to survive. Whether it be Passard's minimalism, Gagnaire's polyphony or Adria's technical mastery. The focus has been shifted from dining being a sumptuous experience to one that relies on a display of the chefs wizardry.

That is probably in large part caused by how experienced we are as eaters and how jaded we are about cooking. We go to be wowed first, sated second. That acuurately describes your El Bulli experience I believe. And it could also describe your L'Astrance experience except for one thing, they failed to wow you. And while I make no value judgements when comparing things today to the days of old, and despite the fact that I myself like the old style you described so much, I sometimes wonder if generations younger than mine view some of our dining rituals with the same dismissiveness that I have for things like Beef Wellington or Gigot d'Agneu en Croute. Oh the days when you could book at table at Robuchon or a meal at Moulin de Mougins meant something. They won't make cooks like that in the future anymore than there will be a new Fred Astaire. I hope you saved your old menus. Let's go have a bowl of fish soup so we can remember.

[Fat Guy]

Keep an eye on the Cheap Eats thread, Plotnicki. We're just getting started.

[Basildog]

Basildog's 1st rule of restaurant economics.....

Take enough money so that you can pay the bills and open again tomorrow!

And as for the surgestion that we cook the books to make a profit, who the hell said we were not doing that already?

[Wilfrid]

I wanted to drop this report in here, because a dinner I just had is an example of what I think of as some of the better aspects of "old dining".

Restraint in the composition of the plates, but striking flavors. No resistance to contrasting textures. No attempt to invent new dishes:

I ate neat slices of deeply flavored, smooth rabbit pate, accompanied by some quartered fresh figs. I have rarely eaten better figs. Some toasted country bread on the side.

Then a roast saddle of veal; tender cushions of meat, with a tasty crust. Served over a fanned endive, with some intensely flavored, caramelised pearl onions as garnish.

She ate a stew of young vegetables (a little reminiscent of JG's 27 veg simmered in their own broth, but not - thank god - 27 of them).

Then a whole Dover sole, grilled, presented on the bone, then deftly filleted by a skilled professional captain. I think she may have had some potatoes on the side - I forget.

No dessert trolley, I'm afraid. The restaurant was exceptionally comfortable, with correct service from a maitre d' who has worked there for years, and professional captains and waiters (the sommelier, who is a curious fish, was on holiday). It is a "family" restaurant, in the sense that the owner's daughter greets at the door, visits the tables, and makes pleasant gossip.

It's in New York. Not cheap. Guess. Go on, guess.

[CathyL]

Le Perigord?

La Grenouille?

[Wilfrid]

You fell into my fiendish trap. It's not a French restaurant.

[Suzanne F]

Barbetta?

[CathyL]

Fie upon thee, spawn of Satan!

Okay, give us another hint.

[Fat Guy]

Cafe des Artistes.

[Wilfrid]

It's an unfashionable restaurant which I like enormously, and Steve Shaw once told me he found the kitchen "uneven" - or it may have been "inconsistent".

Okay, hint: Suzanne is sort of warm.

[Suzanne F]

Hmmm, that means it could be on Restaurant Row, and/or it could be Italian --- if it's both, it could be Becco or Lattanzi. Or it could be Joe Allen. Or I could be picking up on the wrong characteristics entirely -- in that case, I give up.