Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Nathan]

"One must always be careful of a claim like "most discussed restaurants," as we tend to talk within a self-selected community, and may not realize what other people are talking about."

This is very, very true.

I'd say that online food communities are not immune from the rule (most often stated with political bloggers) that online enthusiasts always vastly overestimate their own influence.

[Sneakeater]

I also think someone has to make the obvious comment about the cascading effects of prior inflated ratings.

I know Frank Bruni appears to have been trying to rein himself in lately, but I wouldn't be surprised if part of his thinking was:

"Well, I gave Little Owl two stars, and the food at The Bar Room at the Modern is clearly better than Little Owl's, and service/ambiance is no worse, so The Bar Room must be three stars."

The problem then would be all those ridiculous two-stars Bruni was strewing about last year.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[robert40]

Not a doubt in my mind that Bubba Gumps generates more interest in the publics mind then Daniel Humm.

With that said being Michael Bauer awarded four stars to Humm before his departure. I could easily foresee Bruni reviewing Eleven Madison Park within a reasonable time.

[Nathan]

"The problem then would be all those ridiculous two-stars Bruni was strewing about last year."

That's an interesting point. You might be right. (Although I think the two stars for Little Owl, Sriphithai and S & T were justifiable)

[Nathan]

"With that said being Michael Bauer awarded four stars to Humm before his departure. I could easily foresee Bruni reviewing Eleven Madison Park within a reasonable time."

Of course. But do you really think that even one person was buying extra copies of the Times (or subscribing) every Wednesday for the unpredictable advent of a Bruni review of EMP?

[Sneakeater]

For the little it's worth, I completely agree with two stars for Sripraphai and Spicy & Tasty (the latter only theoretically, since I've never been). But I think Little Owl, Dressler, Al di La, Red Cat, etc. are one-star restaurants. As much as I love some of them.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

If he wants to put down those places, it's certainly his right. But do it in their own review where an explanation is necessary (at least for most critics).

←

Rich, do you categorically object anytime a critic makes an off-hand reference — for purposes of comparison — to something he's not fully reviewing? It happens all the time, e.g.:

John Doe gave a thrilling performance, overcoming the intonation problems that have plagued him in the past.

John Smith has written a compelling legal thriller, which is much improved over his earlier novel, "The Broken Cherry Tree."

In this film, Spielberg focuses on the characters, unlike his earlier films that are flawed by mind-numbing special effects.

And so forth.

[oakapple]

I know Frank Bruni appears to have been trying to rein himself in lately, but I wouldn't be surprised if part of his thinking was:

"Well, I gave Little Owl two stars, and the food at The Bar Room at the Modern is clearly better than Little Owl's, and service/ambiance is no worse, so The Bar Room must be three stars."

The problem then would be all those ridiculous two-stars Bruni was strewing about last year.

←

Bruni surely must be making comparisons in his head, at least among restaurants that he considers comparable. But I haven't seen any evidence that Bruni is "reining himself in," which would imply that he recognizes that some of his earlier ratings were wrong. He's probably not going to admit outright error, but I can't think of a single thing he's said that suggests even the slightest whiff of regret about any of his past reviews or ratings.

In any event, there have been too many errors over the years to reconcile them. Even assuming that he recognizes the wretched excess of his past, the only thing to be done is simply to start fresh, and eventually the misguided reviews will become more distant memories.

[oakapple]

But what is your concern with this review, aside from the fact that The Bar Room got one star too many (a not inconsiderable error, I admit).

←

The problem with this review is that it shortchanges Daniel Humm's achievement at EMP. EMP has been given a side-by-side review with a completely incomparable restaurant. They both received the same ranking, but not in a way that sheds any particular light on EMP (and in fact tends to favor the Bar Room). Being given three stars alongside the Bar Room sort of devalues EMP.

←

That's why I added the qualifier, "aside from the fact that the Bar Room got one star too many." Had the Bar Room been correctly rated, the fact that they share a review doesn't particularly bother me.

Indeed, I'd like to see a lot more double reviews. If you go back to the Mimi Sheraton era, she would often put reviews side by side that had nothing whatever to do with each other. In one that I was looking at, Le Veau d'Or and Smith & Wollensky were in the same review. Compared to those two, EMP and the Bar Room are kissing cousins.

"The respective ratings of The Modern and The Bar Room are incoherent even in light of that principle."

Why?  If The Modern sucks compared to other restaurants at its price point  (I haven't eaten there so I don't know), then it is perfectly coherent. 

←

I will agree with you that you could imagine a hypothetical case where this was acceptable and coherent. I am suggesting that in this case, it is not. Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[robert40]

"With that said being Michael Bauer awarded four stars to Humm before his departure. I could easily foresee Bruni reviewing Eleven Madison Park within a reasonable time."

Of course.  But do you really think that even one person was buying extra copies of the Times (or subscribing) every Wednesday for the unpredictable advent of a Bruni review of EMP?

←

No. Maybe not actual paper sales even though the attention can't hurt. His slap in the face to Gramercy Tavern provokes discussion and ultimately buzz. Like Mike Tyson would do in promoting a upcoming fight. I believe his ultimate goal is to generate buzz.

[Nathan]

"I will agree with you that you could imagine a hypothetical case where this was acceptable and coherent. I am suggesting that in this case, it is not."

That's all I ever said.

[Nathan]

"His slap in the face to Gramercy Tavern provokes discussion and ultimately buzz."

Among about 15 people on egullet and within the Meyer Empire.

[Sneakeater]

I haven't seen any evidence that Bruni is "reining himself in," which would imply that he recognizes that some of his earlier ratings were wrong. He's probably not going to admit outright error, but I can't think of a single thing he's said that suggests even the slightest whiff of regret about any of his past reviews or ratings.

←

Please understand that I'm not arguing with you about this, oakapple, and I make no claims to understanding what is going on inside Frank Bruni's head. (I was going to say, "what (if anything)", but that seems gratuitously nasty.)

It seems to me, however, that the Freeman's review was meant to be both an apologia and a retrenchment. Especially because, after that, his mean star ratings seemed (impressionisticly -- Leonard Kim can now log on and tell me I'm wrong) to have been lower than before.

[vivin]

"His slap in the face to Gramercy Tavern provokes discussion and ultimately buzz."

Among about 15 people on egullet and within the Meyer Empire.

←

Nathan,

there is evidence that the restaurants respect what is said here.

[Nathan]

vivin:

I still don't see what that has to do with selling newspapers.

[Sneakeater]

My own theory is that classic formality bores him, and he has too little comprehension of the food to distinguish great cuisine from tasty comfort food. The pork chop at The Little Owl and the Bluefoot Chicken at Alain Ducasse are pretty much the same thing to him. It's entirely typical that the suckling pig at EMP was the dish he raved about the most, and while I've no doubt that it's very good indeed, I'll betcha anything it's not what Chef Humm considers his best work.

←

I just want to pile on and agree that this is (a) extremely perceptive and (b) IMO, probably exactly right.

I fixate on this because I think, in this respect, I am exactly like Bruni. The only difference between us is that I'm not one of the most influential professional restaurant reviewers in the world.

[tupac17616]

And exactly who are those people who've been anticipating an EMP re-review? He said nothing in earlier reviews to suggest this was coming, and there was no precedent for it — this being the first time Bruni has redone one of his own reviews.

I'd count myself among those people. I can't even count the number of times Bruni's reviews have directly followed weeks of buzz on the various online food forums (eGullet, Chowhound, etc). Nor the number of times I've been lucky to try a good place just before it got slammed with the post-review crowds, or conversely kicked myself for failing to do so. Whenever there is a notable change in the NYC restaurant scene, be it an opening, a change in concept/location (see: Tocqueville), or whatever, it's always a guessing game to determine when exactly the soft spot occurs after the place has gotten their sh*t together and before a review from Bruni sends the crowds over. (Momofuku Ssam Bar is a place that I feel is in that soft spot right now.) In the came of EMP, we observed both cases: a lot of praise in the food forums, as well as a change of concept due to Humm's arrival last year. It was only a matter of time.

[slkinsey]

If he wants to put down those places, it's certainly his right. But do it in their own review where an explanation is necessary (at least for most critics).

Rich, do you categorically object anytime a critic makes an off-hand reference — for purposes of comparison — to something he's not fully reviewing? It happens all the time, e.g.:

John Doe gave a thrilling performance, overcoming the intonation problems that have plagued him in the past.

John Smith has written a compelling legal thriller, which is much improved over his earlier novel, "The Broken Cherry Tree."

In this film, Spielberg focuses on the characters, unlike his earlier films that are flawed by mind-numbing special effects.

And so forth.

This isn't exactly the same thing, though, is it? More analogous would be something like:

The singing in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon is tuneful and skillfully executed, which is a big improvement over the occasionally painful bleating in another Cameron Mackintosh-produced Broadway musical, The Phantom of the Opera.

I can't imagine that any reviewer would ever write that. What would be the point? The score, composer, book, director, conductor, set designer, singers, people who hired the singers, etc. would all be different. Just as the chef, cooks, FOH staff, concept, menu, etc. are different between EMP, The Modern, GT and USC.

[Nathan]

there are strong stylistic similarities throughout the Meyer Empire. especially at the front of the house. much more so than say in the JG Empire.

I could certainly envision a Broadway critic writing: Miss Saigon, as with the composer's previous hit, Les Miserables, features an emphasis on noise and crowd-pleasing over the top theatrics....despite the presence of a new librettist.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

His slap in the face to Gramercy Tavern provokes discussion and ultimately buzz.

←

Everything the Times publishes is intended to provoke discussion and buzz.

[BryanZ]

Finally, got around to reading the review and agree with the comments (based on this and past reviews) that Bruni is averse to traditional formality. With that and price taken into account one could possibly surmise how Bruni could possibly award three stars to The Bar Room. Still, this seems like a discrete inflation to me.

Eleven Madison Park epitomizes a three-star restaurant. As I've stated emphatically, I believe the best of the food is among the absolute best in the city. Still, I feel that they're a bit too big for their own good and perhaps Bruni (and certainly others here) have picked up on this. What happens with their pastry department will also be interesting over the next few months. I personally would like to see more desserts analagous to Chef Humm's cooking than Chef Kaplan's.

I found the first smacks at GT somewhat inappropriate. However, Bruni clearly needed a theme to link this review together so why not call up the other USHG big guns. While Danny Meyer isn't in all the restaurants all the time, USHG still serves to link them together. The fact that they serve very different cuisines and have very different energies is irrelevant to the review as Bruni sees it, and I kind of agree with him. Bruni's remarks at the end, suggesting that the new upstarts have overthrown the storied powerhouses, was applicable, and I think illuminating to the larger dining public who still consider GT and USC among the best restaurants in the city. Bruni's comments don't change the fact that both restaurants are and will remain dining institutions, but do encourage people to perhaps look elsewhere. That's not really a bad thing.

Edited January 10, 2007 by BryanZ (log)

[Nathan]

"I think illuminating to the larger dining public who still consider GT and USC among the best restaurants in the city."

This, of course, was exactly Bruni's point.

I think part of the issue here is that everyone on the thread takes this for a given...while the vast vast vast majority of the NY dining public follows Zagat (this isn't quite so true with the younger demographic...there's a reason why you never see anyone my age at USC unless they are accompanied by parents).

[Leonard Kim]

It seems to me, however, that the Freeman's review was meant to be both an apologia and a retrenchment.  Especially because, after that, his mean star ratings seemed (impressionisticly -- Leonard Kim can now log on and tell me I'm wrong) to have been lower than before.

←

Logged on. You're wrong.

Seriously, there've only been 20 reviews since Freemans, which may not constitute a big enough sample. Starting with the Freemans review, Bruni's average rating has been 1.5 stars.

Pre-Freemans? 1.6 stars. Statistically, there's no difference.

Probably not surprising, really. Bruni's stars have been, as numbers, unremarkable. As ratings, the ones that provoked questioning have been both high and low.

[Nathan]

of course, its always the outliers that skews one's perception of a critic's entire ouevre.

the problem is that Bruni's outliers have been especially egregious. (though nothing compares Hesser's three stars for Spice Market!)

[Nathan]

you know, here's why I think people are (sometimes) unfair to Bruni:

I'm certain that with every prior reviewer one could find mistakes just as egregious (if we go far enough back those mistakes won't, of course, be obvious)...I can think of a couple Grimes ratings that if given by Bruni would result in massive amounts of consternation and condemnation on this board (of course, Grimes' background wasn't in food either, he was one of the preeminent historians of the American cocktail).

The difference between Bruni and his predecessors comes down, imo, to two primary factors:

A. (and this is by far the most significant one)...the astronomical growth in amateur criticism and internet writing about restaurants. No critic will ever garner the deference of the past....Grimes was the end of that era. If Bruni had been the critic ten, even six, years ago...he wouldn't have been criticized anywhere near as much. By restauranteurs, sure. But that's always been the case. Restauranteurs will always apologize for critics who give them a good review and disparage those who do not.

This isn't a bad thing of course...but I do think there's some nostalgia for a past that never was...(previous critics were all over the map as well).

B. He got off to a bad start. There were some notable initial missteps. Undubitably, he's not the only Times critic that has done this. However, thanks to the internet and these threads...there's a certain amount of institutional memory that a critic can't escape now. So, I suppose this point is really a sub-point to the one above.

Another factor is his apparent bias against formal dining. I'm not quite sure this is true -- he did after all four-star Per Se and Masa, and three-star Atelier, EMP, Country and Picholine. But, insofar as this may be true, I'd avow that this bias only follows that of the dining public. I'm not sure that a public critic writing for public taste is necessarily a bad thing. And his ratings of Sriphithai, S&T and general willingness to write about the other boroughs shows an attempt to broaden public tastes, not just follow them. Frankly, I can handle a little populism in a critic if he is willing to write seriously about Sriphithai and S&T.

And here's my final point (in this already too long post):

I'm willing right now to put down cash that the next NY Times critic will be written about on threads analogous to this one in the following fashion: initial euphoria after the first review (just as Bruni was after his inaugural Babbo review -- if you don't believe me, go back and read the thread...I'm not joking); followed by one of the two following sentiments over the next year: "well, at least he/she is better than Bruni" to which someone will write "that's supposed to be a compliment?"; or, someone will write "________ is even worse than Bruni!"

anyone want to take my bet? I'll even give you odds.

in other words, every NY Times dining critic will be compared disfavorably to the past.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)