Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[rich]

"Nathan as I recall that was a very controversial review based on his first paragraph, where he came as close as possible to saying he didn't award Babbo four stars because he didn't enjoy the music.

I don't think euphoria existed at all. In fact, it was in that review he set the tone for his other problematic proclamations."

I remember you making points on the music.  Read everyone else's posts on that thread.  They were very positive.  I've gone back and looked...human memory is faulty.  Look at the thread.

"To take a negative approach certainly speaks volumns about his character and personality."

Eh, here's the problem.  USC and GT have three stars and are at the top of the Zagat ratings.  They're also not that good.  (especially USC).  GT might have changed in the past week, but with all due respect to FG, that's the past week.  If you really want to emphasize that the best restaurants in the Meyer Empire are EMP and the Modern, you have to compare the others negatively.

With all due respect, there's a certain age demographic that gives an unmerited affection to USC and GT as they are now (whatever they may have deserved in the past).  In the past five years I've eaten at USC four or five times and at GT twice.  There's a reason why we were the only people under 50 in the room that weren't accompanied by parents.

←

Nathan I'm not saying GT or USC are very good now. I think I mentioned USC would be awarded one star when there was talk of it being the second restaurant in the review. I don't think someone's age has anything to do with it. I know I'm old, no need to remind me.

I was saying he could have chosen to take a positive approach about his choices. Why be negative about USC and GT in other restaurants' reviews? If he feels both are currently one (I think both have three), then he should give them their own review and explain his thinking.

Criticisms and pot shots are easy, explantions are more difficult.

[Nathan]

To augment my point about cost being the implicit category definer for some:

Masa hardly fits in the traditional four-star category (unless you really want to argue that Hatsuhana was sufficient precedent -- instead of simply being a ghastly outlier). Honmura Ann hardly fits in the traditional three-star category. Otto hardly fits in the traditional two star category. etc.

But Bruni's four for Masa didn't even get a murmur of complaint. I'd say that if Masa was exactly the same but cost 30% as much we'd have seen some gripes.

Yes, I'm cynical.

[Nathan]

"Criticisms and pot shots are easy, explantions are more difficult."

Fair point. But an actual review and downgrade would have been far more perverse (as I noted on Monday).

The last thing DM wants is for USC to be reviewed. We all know it's a one star restaurant...at least I think most would agree. He can't change the place and make it relevant because it has one of the highest percentage of regulars in the city. They don't want any changes. Its full every night. Its not going to change. So the last thing he wants is a review.

[rich]

"The last thing DM wants is for USC to be reviewed.  We all know it's a one star restaurant...at least I think most would agree.  He can't change the place and make it relevant because it has one of the highest percentage of regulars in the city.  They don't want any changes.  Its full every night.  Its not going to change.  So the last thing he wants is a review.

←

That's probably true, but that shouldn't make a difference or stop him. (Those regulars wouldn't leave if it got an "unsatisfactory" - and neither would the tourists who read Zagat)

I would have more respect for someone that writes a negative-style review, than someone who snipes and slithers away.

[rich]

Rich, read the Babbo thread and the first Bruni thread.

the reaction to the Babbo review was overwhelmingly popular (yours wasn't, but virtually everyone else's was)....some were literally euphoric. 

Read the threads.

btw, Babbo was Bruni's first review.

←

Okay, so it was me who wasn't euphoric. I knew it was somebody.

But in the end I was proved right.

[Nathan]

arguably, there's no reason to re-review USC though....nothing has changed.

its just that you can't get three stars for tuna and wasabi-mashed potatoes today (or "Indian-Spiced Vegetables" -- an extremely mediocre entree that was probably daring 20 years ago)

[oakapple]

Rich, read the Babbo thread and the first Bruni thread.

the reaction to the Babbo review was overwhelmingly popular (yours wasn't, but virtually everyone else's was)....some were literally euphoric.

←

Nathan is right. With the Rich as a lonely dissenter, most people thought the Babbo review was close to pitch-perfect. With hindsight, I think we can see it had some of the flaws that have infected the whole Bruni enterprise, but at the time Rich was almost by himself.

The Bouley review came just two weeks later, and by then most of his support had dried up.

I was saying he could have chosen to take a positive approach about his choices. Why be negative about USC and GT in other restaurants' reviews? If he feels both are currently one (I think both have three), then he should give them their own review and explain his thinking.

Criticisms and pot shots are easy, explantions are more difficult.

←

A critique isn't a pot shot. He need not write a full review to comment upon his recent experience. There isn't some particular length that a comment must be, in order for it to be appropriate. The USC comments were fine, and the GT comments would have been, except that the place is in transition.

I entirely agree, however, that a review of the Bar Room and Eleven Madison Park shouldn't end with a negative complaint about two other restaurants. It ends the review on a decidedly odd note.

Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

arguably, there's no reason to re-review USC though....nothing has changed.

←

Restaurants at the high end should be re-reviewed periodically. I mean, there was no particular urgency for Vong and Mercer Kitchen to be re-reviewed last year. Bruni just felt they had drifted sufficiently far from their original ratings that something needed to be said. I think you can safely predict that one or two of the existing NYT three-star restaurants will get kicked in the teeth next year. It seems re-reviews have been a bit more frequent of late, perhaps because the calendar of new openings has slowed down from the pace a couple of years ago.

[rich]

A critique isn't a pot shot. He need not write a full review to comment upon his recent experience. There isn't some particular length that a comment must be, in order for it to be appropriate. The USC comments were fine, and the GT comments would have been, except that the place is in transition.

←

That's fine, but what are they doing in other restaurants' reviews? Wouldn't those type of brief (single thought - no explanation comments) be more appropriate for his blog?

While I agree that all criticisms aren't pot shots, I think these are because of their placement, tone and sniper approach.

[scottie]

Now the crew at EMP can be treated to "You're a bunch of two-star cooks at a three-star restaurant!" -type dressdowns we get sometimes at (undisclosed location).

This speech would make a lot less sense at the Modern, though. "We're a bunch of three-star cooks at a two-star restaurant!"

[Fat Guy]

One possibility is that our perception of history causes us to regard each Times reviewer as less than his or her predecessors.

Another possibility is that each Times reviewer has been less than his or her predecessors.

Certainly, the progression from Ruth Reichl to William Grimes to Frank Bruni has been one of consistent decline. I don't think that's a historical perception; I think that's just the way it is. To Grimes's credit, he took the stars more seriously than Reichl, but in all other respects she was a better critic. Bruni, though a good writer, is most certainly the worst Times restaurant critic ever. I'm not sure about the transition from Bryan Miller to Ruth Reichl. A lot of folks thought she was an improvement -- many think she was the best ever.

[Sneakeater]

I think I mentioned USC would be awarded one star when there was talk of it being the second restaurant in the review. I don't think someone's age has anything to do with it. I know I'm old, no need to remind me.

←

Those people sitting next to you sounded like they were pretty young. Or at least frisky.

[Fat Guy]

With all due respect, there's a certain age demographic that gives an unmerited affection to USC and GT as they are now (whatever they may have deserved in the past).  In the past five years I've eaten at USC four or five times and at GT twice.  There's a reason why we were the only people under 50 in the room that weren't accompanied by parents.

←

And what might that reason be? You're speaking of these restaurants as though they've been around since the 1950s. But Gramercy Tavern opened in 1994. Its oldest customers have only aged 13 years. In addition, having been to both of those restaurants many more times than you, I can say that there have always been plenty of younger folks dining at them without parents. Not that it matters: young customers are hardly the authorities on restaurant quality they imagine themselves to be. Most of the best restaurants in the city are firmly middle aged with respect to their core demographics. There's no four-star restaurant catering primarily to twenty-somethings, thirty-somethings or even, really, to forty-somethings. All those people are young for a four-star restaurant. No, the twenty-something crowd that flocks to Spice Market and Buddakan is not at Gramercy Tavern. How is that in any way a statement about quality or stars?

[Fat Guy]

Those who think Union Square Cafe is a one-star restaurant should have a look at the most recent review, from William Grimes, in 1999. If anything, Union Square Cafe has improved a little since then, both in terms of food and service, and its wine list continues to deepen. It's conceivable that Bruni would move it to two stars on the grounds that the rest of the restaurant world has evolved past Union Square Cafe while it has stood relatively still. But one star seems unlikely.

[Sneakeater]

Most of the best restaurants in the city are firmly middle aged with respect to their core demographics. There's no four-star restaurant catering primarily to twenty-somethings, thirty-somethings or even, really, to forty-somethings. All those people are young for a four-star restaurant. No, the twenty-something crowd that flocks to Spice Market and Buddakan is not at Gramercy Tavern. How is that in any way a statement about quality or stars?

←

This is enormously relevant to another, unrelated discussion, which we're not having anymore.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

"No, the twenty-something crowd that flocks to Spice Market and Buddakan is not at Gramercy Tavern."

that's an entirely different twenty-something and thirty-something crowd than the one that is eating at WD-50 and Perry Street.

But as Sneakeater hinted, making that distinction got folks a twitter the last time we talked about it.

[slkinsey]

Yes. To be clear: ixnay on the idgebray and unneltay discussion.

[Sneakeater]

That isn't the discussion I was referring to (just for the ecord-ray).

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

"No, the twenty-something crowd that flocks to Spice Market and Buddakan is not at Gramercy Tavern."

that's an entirely different twenty-something and thirty-something crowd than the one that is eating at WD-50 and Perry Street.

But as Sneakeater hinted, making that distinction got folks a twitter the last time we talked about it.

←

Well, WD-50 is a two-star restaurant, and Perry Street is priced like one. (I happen to think WD-50 deserves a bump up to three, but the guy who decides hasn't come to that conclusion yet.)

There's an unfortunate trend in criticism that is biased against restaurants that do classic things well. You see it in Bruni's comment about Bouley, "The pairing of citrus dressing with a seafood carpaccio (scallops, in this case) is a tired, uninspired concept." Is it David Bouley's fault that a concept he helped to invent has been so widely replicated by others who aren't as good at it?

My only experience at Union Square Café is too dated to be relevant here. But I don't think it's a fault that the restaurant has failed to start any recent culinary trends.

Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

oh, well, I think that discussion was perfectly relevant.

but anyway...USC isn't "tired" in the way that Bouley purportedly is, USC just belongs in the 80's....its food is along the same lines of my Silver Palate Cookbook from the 80's. when the best dish on the menu is seared tuna with wasabi mashed potatoes.....its simply not a two or three star restaurant no matter how much nostalgia people have for it.

USC is a lot like Little Owl actually. But the food at Little Owl is a bit better...the space is less comfortable (though the service is just as friendly), and Little Owl is 1/3 the price. Of course, if you're offended by no one around you wearing a suit, then one might find USC worth the price.

[oakapple]

but anyway...USC isn't "tired" in the way that Bouley purportedly is, USC just belongs in the 80's....its food is along the same lines of my Silver Palate Cookbook from the 80's.  when the best dish on the menu is seared tuna with wasabi mashed potatoes.....its simply not a two or three star restaurant no matter how much nostalgia people have for it.

Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with preparing food well that is no longer perceived as cutting-edge.

I mean, if you're saying Seared Tuna with Wasabi Mashed Potatoes was never any good to begin with, we can have that discussion. But if it was a good thing in the 1980s, exactly when did its charms disappear? I enjoy cutting-edge stuff too, but recipes aren't flawed just because they've been around awhile.

USC is a lot like Little Owl actually.  But the food at Little Owl is a bit better...the space is less comfortable (though the service is just as friendly), and Little Owl is 1/3 the price.

←

I think you need to recheck the math. At USC, apps are $9-16, mains $23-34. At The Little Owl, apps are $7-14, mains $17-26. It sounds like you're going to spend about $10 more per person at USC, before beverages. Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

I think I mentioned USC would be awarded one star when there was talk of it being the second restaurant in the review. I don't think someone's age has anything to do with it. I know I'm old, no need to remind me.

←

Those people sitting next to you sounded like they were pretty young. Or at least frisky.

←

Certainly they were frisky and it made my meal more enjoyable. They were late 30's early 40's.

USC does what it does very well and I enjoyed my meal. It's just a feeling you get - been there, done that. But there's certainly nothing wrong with the place.

Hey, they keep packing them in after 20 years, if it's not broke, don't fix it. As I have said many times, stars are for watching, not eating.

Edited January 10, 2007 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

Nathan: Then you're making the claim that three-star restaurants from the 1980s deserve one star in 2007. I think that claim fails on its face. There may be a certain amount of culinary evolution overall (cuisine, unlike most of the arts, is something that is on an improving trend in the United States) that has shifted the stars one star to the left, but it's hard to see it having the impact you're asserting. In addition, it would apply primarily to restaurants that have either failed to improve at all or that were firmly anchored in short-term trends. Neither is the case with Union Square Cafe. Yes, there are classics on the menu -- that's going to be the case at most restaurants that are in it for the long haul. Jean Georges still has its scallops with raisin-caper emulsion and Daniel still has his potato-crusted fish. So what? It's certainly not the case that the entire Union Square Cafe is an '80s remix. Have you had the crispy lemon-pepper duck with peach-fig chutney and sauteed Greenmarket bok choy? How about the Roman-style roasted Vermont baby lamb with sauteed mushrooms, eggplant and fagioli all'Uccelletto? If wasabi mashed potatoes offend your hip, modern, youthful sensibility you can always have the same superior quality tuna raw, in the yellowfin tuna tartare with salsa verde, spicy aioli, sugar snap pea-radish salad, and potato crostini. Still, I think the old-school tuna dish holds up against any other cooked tuna dish I've had anywhere in the world. It's a great piece of tuna -- needless to say, Union Square Cafe buys enough of this stuff, and has been doing so for long enough, that they can buy at the top of the market -- and the wasabi mashed potatoes are a great accompaniment. What's wrong with that? Just saying wasabi mashed potatoes in a condescending manner doesn't make them bad. They're delicious, as is the marinade on that amazing piece of tuna. And of course, Union Square Cafe has just about the best service of any restaurant, and an amazing wine program, and by the way I totally disagree that it's only populated by fifty-somethings, though as I said before that may be the majority audience as it is at all the best restaurants.

[Nathan]

"Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with preparing food well that is no longer perceived as cutting-edge."

of course not. but is it worth two or three stars? certainly not at those prices. and some of the dishes at USC simply suck.

"At USC, apps are $9-16, mains $23-34. At The Little Owl, apps are $7-14, mains $17-26. It sounds like you're going to spend about $10 more per person at USC, before beverages."

not really. virtually everything worth ordering at USC is around $30 for entrees. not so for Little Owl. and the portions are significantly larger at Little Owl.

But yeah, one could do USC for less...its just that in my experience the per-person cost at USC somehow ends up at close to a $100. I think people perhaps feel compelled to spend more on wine there.

[Fat Guy]

"USHG is probably the most important restaurant group in New York City, and therefore North America. So when you go to write about USHG, you need to have your act together."

No.  Either of the JG or Boulud groups are both more influential and more significant.  The Thomas Keller group is by far the most influential and important in North America.  The Robuchon North America group is now more influential and important.  Probably LettuceEntertainYou as well.  BRGuest has a presence everywhere in the country.  So does Chodorow.  So does Bartolotta I'm sure there are some California restaurant groups that could easily compete.

←

I think you're viewing this through some particular lenses. It may be that there are some restaurant groups that have more impact than USHG in terms of pure haute cuisine firepower. It may also be that there are some groups that are larger. However, USHG is the envy of every one of those groups. I really think that to say Robuchon's restaurant group "is now more influential and important" than USHG is so wildly inaccurate as to be difficult to discuss.