Assessing Restaurants

[Fat Guy]

But how is what I just said different than what I said originally? Technique is the primary issue to asssess and then execution. The rest can be bought for money. It sounds the same to me.

Plotnicki, the ability to comprehend the English language is fundamental to one's ability to participate successfully on this English-language site. If you're having trouble with your English, I can recommend several excellent sources of remedial help.

[Jonathan Day]

If the person who asked about the mint jelly asked you why a ball that clears the endline outside of the goalposts isn't considered a score, they would readily accept your answer that the objective standard is that it must cross within the posts, not outside. But they would never accept your answer about the mint jelly the same way.  Personally I think this is what is wrong with food.

That's because it is far easier to secure consensus on (1) whether the ball did in fact clear the endline outside the goalposts; (2) whether the accepted rules state that that it must cross inside the posts. Only the first, by analogy, holds in the case of the mint jelly on the gigot. (That one was not a 7 hour lamb, by the way -- it was a boneless roast. About an hour, if I recall, in a very hot oven). Nobody would argue that my guest had asked for mint jelly. All sorts of people would argue about whether the jelly would make the lamb worse or better. But why don't we just agree that you hold to some theory of objectivity where I think that a theory of intersubjectivity or socially constructed consensus is more powerful. Our theories diverge. Why don't we let it stop there?

The second issue you raise is new and more interesting to me.

Now getting back to where the conversation is right now, to me the primary issue in assessing a restaurant is what level of technique they apply to the ingredients. In fact I think all the other variables are pretty much the same because they can be bought for money. You can buy the best grade tuna and you can buy the best decor. But what you can't buy is that perfect turn of the wrist a chef applies to those ingredients. I think this is the same in every art or craft. What an artist brings to the mix is his individual take on the technique of his craft. I think it's the same for musicians, painters, sculptures, writers etc.  

I think the second most important thing is execution. Perfect execustion of simple concepts can be more rewarding than more complex technique that isn't as well executed. The restaurant Arpege is always a good example to point to as they can execute a single scallop and a few slices of carrots so well that it can be more profound than a more complex dish somewhere else.

I would look at this from the perspective of the restaurateur and then from the perspective of the diner. I have some experience of the former but a lot more of the latter, so I hope that members who have been "inside" more than I will contribute here.

From the restaurateur's perspective I believe that success is about creating an environment where the different elements complement (reinforce) one another: location, technique, selection of ingredients, service (not just table service but the whole approach to the customer, starting from their first phone call), clientele, menu design, interior decor and the like. As with any powerful business strategy, you can't separate one strand of it and say "this makes the restaurant tick." If you could, it would be too easy for a competitor to imitate.

("Complement" has a precise meaning here. A and B are complements if having more of A increases the returns to having more of B. The cross-partial derivatives are all positive.)

For an example outside of the restaurant biz, look at Southwest Airlines. It flies from regional airports rather than busy "hub" airports; this keeps its prices down and enables fast turnarounds. Its pricing structure is simple and inexpensive. It doesn't allow baggage interlining. It doesn't serve food. It has one kind of aircraft. Each of these things reinforces all of the others. Competitors have tried to imitate Southwest, generally unsuccessfully, because they typically picked on one element of its system and tried to build around that. Only airlines like Easyjet over here, which took almost the entire Southwest model (including the colour of the planes!) were able to do anything like it.

(I didn't invent this notion of complementing strategies, though I wish I had. It started with Paul Milgrom and John Roberts of Stanford, and Michael Porter popularised it in a brilliant article in the Harvard Business Review a few years ago, called "What is Strategy?")

Look at Chez Panisse. It is not perfect, but everything in its system "fits": the no-choice menu, the focus on fine ingredients, the small size and largely unchanging philosophy. They are able to attract good candidates from culinary schools and other restaurants. It is a self-reinforcing system, one that is hard for anyone else to imitate. I think Keller has done something similar with the French Laundry, and Roux with the Waterside Inn. Vergé had a good thing going for a long time with the Moulin de Mougins, until the village ran the Cannes-Grasses through road next to the property, cutting it off from the old part of town and destroying a lot of its peacefulness and country ambience. Suddenly a huge element of the system was knocked out of kilter. Down it went. I hope that something similar isn't happening to the Waterside Inn as Roux slips into retirement.

By the way, I don't know any great restaurateur who ever said, "I am going to design a restaurant to serve people at the $100 price point", and then worked backward from there. It's a lousy way to design any business, let alone one that is all about creating a powerful and distinctive experience.

And that brings me to the diner's perspective. Here I think it's about the quality of the total experience: not just technique but also ingredients, recipes, decor, service.

(And, by the way, I believe it takes a lot more than money to get consistently perfect ingredients. You have to find them. You may have to grow them. But let that pass.)

Great technique with bad ingredients doesn't get you very far. Perfect ingredients with poor technique -- e.g. an overcooked fish, no matter how wonderful it was before it went into the pan -- obviously don't work. For me, even perfect ingredients and superb technique don't work if the quality of the welcome or the room is bad. I want to see balance and contrast in the menu, and a degree of creativity and thoughtfulness in the preparations. And I want to feel that I am not being held to ransom or asked to pay silly prices. I don't believe restaurants should give away their services, but I do think that price and total quality should ultimately line up: the French speak of the rapport qualité-prix.

I scribbled the above hastily, so it may not hold together as I would have hoped, especially the second section, and there are a lot of parenthetical asides. I'll look back later and edit if I have time.

[cabrales]

As I have mentioned in another thread, it does not matter to me what the other clientele at a restaurant may be like. I don't listen in on their conversations; I look to the dishes and the physical decor of the restaurant for visual appeal. If the other clients look less "distiguished", that's fine.

[rich]

If I'm the best-dressed person in a restaurant, I wouldn't patronize the place.

[Steve Plotnicki]

JD - Quickly just as to this point, my comment about the average price per diner and working backwards comes right out of my conversations with chefs in NYC. They are all acutely aware of what every restaurant in the city gets per cover. They all know that Daniel is something like $135 a diner and many of them gauge their own restaurants in relation to that number. But let me digest the rest of your response and post more on it later.

[cabrales]

If I'm the best-dressed person in a restaurant, I wouldn't patronize the place.

rich -- When you have a chance, could you discuss why you would not patronize a restaurant at which you were the best dressed diner?

[Steve Plotnicki]

"If I'm the best-dressed person in a restaurant, I wouldn't patronize the place"

Would you belong to a club that would have you as a member?

[cabrales]

Steve P -- I would, depending on the club. If I appreciated the club's services and other things the club would have to offer and the price of admissions were reasonable, I would.

[rich]

Cabby - I enjoy being comfortable while dining, therefore never, ever wear a tie. After years of wearing them to work everyday, I now only wear ties when there is a board meeting (otherwise I get strange looks and I need my job).

It was a takeoff on a old Groucho Marx line - "I would never join a club that accepted me as a member."

I once went to an Italian NYC restaurant in the 70's, very upscale and didn't wear a tie, though I was wearing a very nice blue blazer (it was the middle of summer). I wasn't allowed to dine unless I wore a tie or an ascot. Management gave me an ascot and yes I wore it. Needless to say, my girlfriend reminded me that the only thing around my neck should be the dog leash she bought. And yes, it was a very, very short leash.

[hollywood]

So to me, the great restaurants are those who perfectly execute the most demanding technique in the most soulful way. Just like a saxophone player or a violinist

I assure you the great chefs of the world don't sit around all day trying to figure out ever more demanding techniques with which to wow their audiences. They sit around trying to figure out how to make food taste better.

Carrying the musical analogy forward........... It's 1967, Hendrix is playing the guitar behind his back, with his teeth, etc. Complicated techinque, yes. But did it produce his best, most soulful music? Absolutely not. The crowd might have reacted to such tricks momentarily, but would they go out and buy LP's featuring solely such moves? No way. OTOH, there is something about watching the flames dance around in a preparation of Cafe Brulot. But does it make it taste any better/different?

[Wilfrid]

Cabby - I enjoy being comfortable while dining, therefore never, ever wear a tie. After years of wearing them to work everyday, I now only wear ties when there is a board meeting (otherwise I get strange looks and I need my job).

Depends on where you're standing, doesn't it. I have been through long periods of not wearing a tie (academia), wearing one (work) and then not wearing one again (business "casual"). I usually then do the opposite in my social behavior. I enjoy putting on a suit and tie in the evening, now, just because it's the only opportunity to do so.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - Well what you are describing is not technique but showmanship. The fact of the matter is that what makes Hendrix'x playing so unique to begin with is that he's a lefty who plays a righty guitar upside down. So his technique is about as unique and original as you will ever find.

[Wilfrid]

I think it's widely recognised that Soyer used to stir left handed, with his mixing bowl upside down. Horrendous mess, but what a wrist.

[hollywood]

Hollywood - Well what you are describing is not technique but showmanship. The fact of the matter is that what makes Hendrix'x playing so unique to begin with is that he's a lefty who plays a righty guitar upside down. So his technique is about as unique and original as you will ever find.

I beg to differ. So, he's a lefty. So, he plays a right handed guitar upside down. So did McCartney in the early years--a bass guitar, I'll grant you, but still a guitar. So much for originality. The man just had great technique. He'd have had great technique if he played a left handed guitar right handed.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - But it's part of what makes Hendrix Hendrix. For example, when he bent notes he pulled down instead of pushed up like all the other guitarists did. That type of nuance made his sound totally unique. Whether he would have been a great guitar player if he played in a conventional style is really a different point. The fact is the unusual technique is an important factor in making his playing distinguishable from others.

I can give you a few other examples of people who played their insruments in an unusual way where it made a big difference in their recordings. Go listen to Todd Rundgren Hello it's Me on Something Anything. Except for the trumpet and sax, he plays all the instruments himself I believe. And he plays drums in the oddest way and it makes the record sound totally unique. There isn't a trained drummer in the land who would approach it the way he did. And it's the same for Stevie Wonder who played his own drums during his good period. If you hired the best drummer in the world to play on those sessions, he would never have made the same choices that someone who isn't really a drummer would make. It even applies for Wilfrid's example of the Ramone's whose success is based on their complete lack of technique. It's the maximum application of the technique any 16 year old kid that plays guitar reasonably well could muster, yet with the reliability of adults. And in their case, that was one of their biggest selling point.

[sladeums]

re: Hendrix

[guitar wank]

Whether or not he played a right handed guitar strung in reverse or left handed guitar is neither here nor there and has no relation to his technique...but rather a necessity due to dominant hand position.

A reverse-strung right hand guitar is essentially no different than a lefty guitar and he would be playing in essentially the same position as a right hander.

The only difference would have been in some tonal qualities as you end up with reverse position poles on the pickups, reverse position head stock which lends a little different resonance, tone controls and trem bar are in a different position and your pick guard doesn't do much...I would assume the bridge and saddle would be adjusted appropriately, but I'm not sure...

Anyway, if that was the only way you played there really wouldn't be much adapting of technique to accomplish.

The remarkable thing about his technique lay in the fact that he had such huge hands and was able to easily 'thumb-wrap' the lower strings allowing him to play alternating bass lines along with whatever rhythm chords he was playing and interspersing this all with individual lead licks (see Little Wing for most obvious reference). Besides the fact that he had an incredible vibrato and string bending range, a great head for using the new electronics of the day, a nice touch with feedback and appeared to be channelling some sort of other-worldy presence.

I doubt that the drugs hurt some of his early inspiration, either.

For a contrast check out Otis Rush who played lefty but did not alter the stringing of the guitar which gives an entirely different sound and attack.

Sorry, I'll back away slowly now.

[/guitar wank]

[LaNiña]

I love that album, "Something Anything." Just thought I'd add that.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Slaedums - You mean playing upside down or in reverse wouldn't warrant different technique? You lost me there. Just your point about pickup positions alone and how he would have to manipulate the tone to take advantage of it necessitates unusual technique that someone like Otis Rush wouldn't have to resort to. And string bending which I pointed out earlier is another. How about strumming? I'm sure there are more points to add to it as well. Of course this isn't to say that these variable aloe make up Hendrix's greatness. But they certainly add to his unique sound.

[hollywood]

Slaedums - You mean playing upside down or in reverse wouldn't warrant different technique? You lost me there. Just your point about pickup positions alone and how he would have to manipulate the tone to take advantage of it necessitates unusual technique that someone like Otis Rush wouldn't have to resort to. And string bending which I pointed out earlier is another. How about strumming? I'm sure there are more points to add to it as well. Of course this isn't to say that these variable aloe make up Hendrix's greatness. But they certainly add to his unique sound.

You've got the right string but the wrong yo-yo. He wasn't playing "upside down." He just inverted the order of the strings on a right handed guitar so he could play them lefty right side up. And so castles made of sand slips into the sea eventually........

[sladeums]

hollywood posted on Jul 23 2002, 05:40 PM

He just inverted the order of the strings on a right handed guitar so he could play them lefty right side up.

Exactly. That was my point.

When a right handed player plays a guitar it's strung low E to high E, starting with the string closest to you. Which is how he strung his guitar, low E to high E, but with the axe flipped.

If I were to play a D chord (being right handed) the fingering and fretting would be the same as Hendrix would have used, except it would be w/ the opposite hand.

On the other hand (heh), my point about Otis Rush was that he was actually just playing a guitar upside down, which I think is what you were referring to Hendrix doing earlier, Steve P, or I may have misunderstood.

This set up would demand technique different from the average guitar player, and also present a somewhat different sound, so I think your earlier point would have been correct (if I understood correctly) it just needed to be applied to a different performer.

But this is neither here nor there, mere quibbling...

Back to the food...

continue please.

edit: sucky grammar

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think you guys are wrong about Hendrix. He played the guitar upside down, The high E was the first string on his guitar at the top of the neck. Did either of you ever see him live? I saw him at Avery Fisher in 1969 (he sucked) and he was playing a Stratocaster upside down, bending the high E downward. But I will stand corrected if you can find a film of him playing as you have described.

[sladeums]

If no one else has bothered I'll see what I can dig up for you tomorrow...

But, on this particular issue I have very little doubt that my original assertation is correct....a large portion of my formative years as a guitar player were spent studying and learning his material.

We'll see if there's anything out there...

And of course you do know just stating that you remember this comes off as rather dubious - you know, being the 60's and all...

just kidding...

seeya

[ngatti]

SP said on July 16:

Just like not everyone can understand music or foreign films. But the problem is things like food or music etc, we treat them as egalitarian activities so it's very difficult to have a conversation with people when they don't understand what's going on with the food. It's one thing when food is obviously delicious. But not all good food is obvious and it runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it.

Sorry to jump in late, but this statement seems so damned provocative .

I feel you very slyly sucker me into something here: Music..foreign film..hmmm, yeah sure, uh-huh. "Egalitarian"...yup, ok....

BANG!!!: "But not all good food is obvious and runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it."

I'm tempted to let the statement hang there for a while. It's late and I'd like to come back to this. Let me say that this statement moves food and cooking into he realm of performance art (liebrandt aside). I'm not comfortable with this. All good food should indeed be 'obviously delicious', in fact it should be painfully 'obviously delicious'. In fact all good food IS 'obviously delicious'. It may be cerebral, but it to be good it must also be inherently delicious. I'll stop here and continue when there are less cobwebs.

Nick

[Steve Plotnicki]

Nick - Maybe when the cobwebs are gone you will mull this over. Ripe camembert is delicious to those who have an affinity for the way it tastes. But liking it usually doesn't usually come naturally to people. Learning how to enjoy it entails a slow learning process that most people will never make their through. Many foods or food combinations rely on an "educated palate" and many things aren't obvious to us. Once upon a time serving sauteed foie gras with goujonettes of soul was blasphemy. Then one day some chef figured out how to make it work and that pushed the envelope. Was it obviously delicious to people when they first taste it? To some maybe and to some it took a while. And other things while being delicious challange your assumptions about food. Having the red pepper essence lollipops at The Fat Duck is a good example. Lovely sweet lollys but after 5 seconds of sweetness you realize something is different. The end result is that the cerebral component outweighs the delicious factor. But if those lollys were served anywhere, it very well might lose it's cerebral component. But camambert will never lose that component because of its complexity.

[Steve Klc]

Nick--maybe the way to approach Steve's statement is like this: imagine someone watching a movie like Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" or viewing a performance of a Mozart opera like "Cosi fan Tutti" for the first time. Even if you don't read the subtitles or surtitles-- if the work or performance is good--the inherent emotion and the drama conveys or transcends your limitations--even if you don't understand the language and are new to opera and Japanese film. You sense what's going on even if you can't fully appreciate it or understand it or articulate why, but, some people just aren't going to get it. Some people inherently are closed off and can't open up to a movie with subtitles, in b&w, or an opera with language, emotion and action driven by singing. My Dad is this way. He's never watched a Woody Allen movie because they were in black and white and never took up the whole screen. Go figure.

I suspect Steve is just trying to say the same thing operates in food and dining and not really trying to be as provocative as you might think. Like in other arts, some things about food and cooking transcend hurdles of perception and bias--some things don't. But often the problem lies not with the producer but the receiver.