Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[robyn]

...After all, "trust the kitchen" has always been a part of Japanese cuisine -- not just in sushi and sashimi.  See Tsukushi or any kaiseki establishment.  Ditto for some Italian restaurants in Italy as well.

←

Actually that's not true with respect to a lot of types of Japanese restaurants. Traditional kaiseki restaurants in Japan (at least the ones I went to) are very formalized ritualized beautiful (to the eye) mostly vegetarian dining experiences which frequently involve foods that are important in terms of meaning (seasonal - religious and otherwise) - but not very delicious. E.g., the most important dish I ate at one dinner was steamed bamboo. The presentation was gorgeous - and that's all I have to say about that dish. Robyn

[robyn]

I want to pick up on something Nathan said.

In the old days, when the top restaurants essentially featured classic French cuisine, you pretty much knew what each dish was, and you ordered what you were in the mood for.  That's what I used to do at Lutece, certainly (and still do at places like LCB Brasserie).  (I find that kind of dining enormously satisfying, BTW.)  And even the places featuring more elaborate cooking than Lutece still used to center on classics.

Cuisine has developed in a way where most menu items aren't classic dishes but new dishes, and many of them you can't even conceive of what they will taste like.  (I wonder why Robert thinks it better for a dish to have a fanciful name rather than a name that gives you some idea at least of what's in it.)  You can order what you think you're in the mood for, given the risks involved in trying to figure what a dish will be like and also the risk of missing something really special that you might otherwise not be attracted to.  But you can also let the kitchen select what they think they do best.  I'm not saying that the latter course is the only one.  I just don't see it as ignorant, or evidence of inexperience, or in any way bad.

←

I never really had a lot of classical French cuisine. Our "food teacher" in France always wanted to take us to the new places - Jamin - Archestrate - stuff like that - within a year after opening. I ate lots of stuff I'd never eaten before. Classical stuff we did eat were things like our first hot foie gras with Andre Daguin at the Hotel Du France in Auch.

And I guess what I've found over the years is that I'll try anything once - because who knows? But if Nathan says he hates sweet potatoes - and assuming he has eaten them prepared properly before - he will at best be tepid about the best sweet potato presentation in the world. Just like I will never really enjoy "well hung" game. Moreover - there are things that I think are ok - things I like - and things I really love. Ditto with my husband. If a great chef makes a great quail and a great pork - I will always go for the quail - and he will always go for the pork. We will both be happier with what we've ordered than with what the other has ordered (I know - we usually swap dishes to find out).

It's hard to dine for 40 years (or even 10) - and not have some things that you enjoy more than others. Robyn

[robyn]

Having re-read my last post, it's possible that Robyn and Robert will say that in fact they're arguing for a return to the days when you could go into a restaurant and know what all the dishes were, mostly because they were renditions of or at most variations on classic cuisine.  And, perhaps they'd further argue, the new focus on novelty -- I've said elsewhere on this board that a restaurant can't get four NYT stars without that now -- is part and parcel of the chef-centric (and diner-derogating) trend they decry.

So maybe it is just a paradigm shift.  As I said above, I find the "old" style of dining tremendously satisfying.  But there's no getting around the fact that I think Jean-Georges Vongerichten is and long has been the supreme culinary talent in New York -- and it isn't because of his skill at rendering the classics.  Especially since there are still places to go to get classic cuisine expertly rendered, I'm happy to be alive at a time when all of this new stuff is available.

←

Robert can speak for himself - but I'm not saying that at all. I'm sure there are things I haven't eaten - like I didn't eat whale in Japan (too politically incorrect) - but - like I said - I'll try anything once. I've even had swan (it's very gamey - don't go out of your way to get it). All I want is a choice of 2 or 3 in my courses. Don't think that's too much to ask. Robyn

[robyn]

Michael, I'm married to someone who is, by the standards of extreme gourmet omnivores, a picky eater. She doesn't eat pork, or about a dozen other things that are part of the gastronomic pantheon.

And we've never had trouble ordering tasting menus in top restaurants. You just tell them your preferences and they deal with it. No big deal.

In one extreme example (this one not involving my wife) I dined at Sushi Yasuda with a reporter who was pregnant and not eating any raw fish. At Sushi Yasuda! She called me before the meal to say we should cancel -- she had just found out about her pregnancy -- but I said we should go. After all, she was interviewing me about my book, in which I tell people how to get the most out of restaurants! So, when we got there, I just said to Mr. Yasuda that we'd be having the omakase but that my friend here is pregnant and won't be eating raw fish. He just nodded, said "congratulations!" and served her cooked and vegetarian items. He was totally committed to making sure her experience was as great as that of anyone else at the sushi bar, and that attitude is shared by most of the best chefs out there.

←

Sushi Yasuda, that's an amazing story!

If all places are that accomodating, then there really IS no problem.

My brother has been reluctant to go to WD-50 because too many of the signature dishes there are things he doesn't eat. How accomodating are they? (Or should we talk about that in the WD-50 thread?)

←

There are obviously people with so many food issues that they can't eat reasonably at a lot of places. Or - for example - people who are vegetarians. They shouldn't go to sushi restaurants in Japan. But for people with just a few problems - well most can deal with the issues by simply having even a very limited choice when it comes to deciding what to eat. And things that may be easy to do in terms of preordering when you live 5 minutes from a restaurant are obviously harder to do when you're 5000 miles away (especially if you're working in a foreign language).

By the way - I never said tasting menus should be abolished. I just don't care for restaurants where that's the only option. I don't hear anyone here arguing for no tasting menus - or only tasting menus. Perhaps I am wrong. Robyn

Edited January 30, 2007 by robyn (log)

[Nathan]

"Actually that's not true with respect to a lot of types of Japanese restaurants. "

I said some. But anyway, you then went on to agree with my statement.

[Sneakeater]

By the way - I never said tasting menus should be abolished.  I just don't care for restaurants where that's the only option.  I don't hear anyone here arguing for no tasting menus - or only tasting menus.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Robyn

←

But if we aren't arguing about that, what ARE we arguing about? We agree.

[Sneakeater]

And - when you're serving all that one bite stuff - you simply rule out a lot of dishes.  How can you serve a single bite sea urchin? 

←

I've never been to either of Keller's restaurants, so if this is only about him and his tasting menus I have nothing to say. But to the extent it's relevant, as a point of fact I've had sea urchins on tasting menus at several restaurants. I think this "one bite" stuff is a bit exaggerated. Unless, as I said, it's strictly a Keller thing. In which case, though, it's so idiosyncratic to his two restaurants that I wonder why it's worth making any kind of deal about it.

[Sneakeater]

By the way - I never said tasting menus should be abolished.  I just don't care for restaurants where that's the only option.  I don't hear anyone here arguing for no tasting menus - or only tasting menus.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Robyn

←

But if we aren't arguing about that, what ARE we arguing about? We agree.

←

Oh, I forgot: we both went to law school.

[BryanZ]

If finances and time weren't a concern I would ALWAYS order a tasting menu. Perhaps my tastes will change, but I love everything and want to be exposed to as many tastes as possible. I'd rather try a little bit of two great things than a lot of one great thing.

[Mayur]

Mayur, btw, I don't agree that Babbo was knocked a star for the music.  the music was used as an example of how Babbo is simply too casual ( in terms of ambience, service and food) to be a four-star restaurant.

←

That was meant to be facetious; I was trying (unsuccessfully, it seems) to make a joke about the resto's original review. I don't think that Babbo is quite up to the four-star level (if they charged $150 a head, I wouldn't necessarily go), but I was rather amused by the fact that Bruni actually decided to mention the music both in his original review and in this article.

[Mayur]

Frankly - Keller's courses on his non-tasting menus aren't large.  They're actually pretty small (maybe 3 bites instead of 1).  My main was 1 small duck breast - and that was served for 2 people.  So I got maybe 3 small slices.  I managed to get through the entire menu I had - and the throwaways - and a bunch of bread - and left without filling the slightest bit full.  Which is unusual for me.  Now I am not saying that I need a half plate of something to savor it - but if something is really really good - like a soup - well a half shot glass isn't enough to savor it and enjoy its goodness.

Also - a lot of Keller's food is reasonably complex.  How can you appreciate a complex dish in a single mini-bite?

And - when you're serving all that one bite stuff - you simply rule out a lot of dishes.  How can you serve a single bite sea urchin?  And means of preparation.  How do you serve a single bite duck breast or fish or rabbit - or pork - or beef - unless you slice everything up into teeny tiny pieces and put them in sous vide bags ahead of dinner time?  Does this spell the end of crispy skin?  And things cooked on the bone?  I once read a review of an expensive restaurant in London - and the reviewer concluded that it was ideal for old people without teeth.  So is that what this is all about - the end of texture?  Robyn

←

Oh, come now. The point that I made about why Keller prefers an all-tasting format is relatively clear: In Keller's opinion, smaller portions allow diners the enjoyment of exploring new flavor sensations without generating the boredom of repetition. How you can think this means the end of diverse ingredients and differential textures is beyond me. Edited January 30, 2007 by Mayur (log)

[Mayur]

Also, combining complex flavor combinations in small packages is what "classic" cuisine has been about since Michel Guerard, at least. I take it that you don't like nouvelle cuisine? Or new Spanish food? Or antojitos?

[robyn]

By the way - I never said tasting menus should be abolished.  I just don't care for restaurants where that's the only option.  I don't hear anyone here arguing for no tasting menus - or only tasting menus.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Robyn

←

But if we aren't arguing about that, what ARE we arguing about? We agree.

←

The original argument was about Bruni's article. Don't think everyone agrees with what he said. Robyn

[robyn]

And - when you're serving all that one bite stuff - you simply rule out a lot of dishes.  How can you serve a single bite sea urchin? 

←

I've never been to either of Keller's restaurants, so if this is only about him and his tasting menus I have nothing to say. But to the extent it's relevant, as a point of fact I've had sea urchins on tasting menus at several restaurants. I think this "one bite" stuff is a bit exaggerated. Unless, as I said, it's strictly a Keller thing. In which case, though, it's so idiosyncratic to his two restaurants that I wonder why it's worth making any kind of deal about it.

←

I think with Keller - one bite is really one bite. From the pictures I've seen of food at Alinea - and based on my experiences with other tasting menus - you're dealing with massively larger portions. I think Keller may be somewhat idiosyncratic - but - because he's the most famous domestic chef in the US today - and maybe the best - what he does is important IMO. The meal I had at Per Se was the most technically perfect meal I've had in the US (although it wasn't the most enjoyable). Robyn

[robyn]

If finances and time weren't a concern I would ALWAYS order a tasting menu.  Perhaps my tastes will change, but I love everything and want to be exposed to as many tastes as possible.  I'd rather try a little bit of two great things than a lot of one great thing.

←

To love everything is to love nothing.

The odds of getting a little or a lot of even one great thing from any chef in any restaurant are long. Even longer if you're looking for two. Like I've said - the key to something being great is being able to remember it 5 or 10 years down the road without benefit of resorting to pictures or notes. Whether it's a dish in a restaurant - a piece of art - a professional success - a loving moment in a relationship - or just about anything that was wonderful in your life. The converse is also true - in terms of the terrible things. What person my age can forget where he or she was the day JFK was killed. And people your age will always remember where they were when they heard about 9/11. And you will always remember the most terrible important personal things - as well as the terrible trivial things - like the worst dishes you ever had (I can remember those as clearly as the best - just can't remember the ones in the middle). Robyn

P.S. Forgot to mention - you're young - and you should try a lot of things. But you have enough years left that they don't have to be itty bitty little pieces of things in tasting menus. The point of dining isn't to wind up 40 years from now having the most itty bitty little pieces you can eat.

Edited January 30, 2007 by robyn (log)

[robyn]

Also, combining complex flavor combinations in small packages is what "classic" cuisine has been about since Michel Guerard, at least. I take it that you don't like nouvelle cuisine? Or new Spanish food? Or antojitos?

←

There's small - and then there's really small. I think most of the tapas I had in Spain (and other places in the world when they became popular worldwide) were served in portions larger than Keller's full sized dishes. I can imagine Keller's tasting menu version of eels (angulas) in garlic and olive oil - 3 eels - but served in a bowl at least 14 inches across. Sopping bread no larger than 1 square inch.

The dish thing dates back to the original nouvelle cuisine (if I remember correctly). Relatively small portions served in very large dishes. Why they did this - I don't know. Keller has taken it to new extremes. The merest whisp of food served in a dish so large it can't fit in an average dishwasher (this I know - because I was thinking of ordering some of his plates until I actually measured them). Of course - most nutrition experts today recommend serving smaller portions in smaller plates so the portions look larger.

As for things like texture - well I am a person who likes crispy - bones - well developed flavors. Those food attributes come in large part from cooking things whole. Guess you might be able to do that for a tasting menu. You just need a restaurant with 1 or 2 or 3 seatings where everyone gets seated at about the same time - so everyone is ready for the same thing at the same time. Kind of like eating at the school cafeteria - first shift - second shift - etc. - but with better food. On my part - when I do "big deal" dining these days - 3 star Michelin stuff - maybe once or twice a year - I go to single seating restaurants if at all possible. So I can eat at a reasonable hour for 3 or more hours.

But you know - I don't know how Keller could turn out the duck I had at Per Se - which was cooked to order - on a tasting menu. Have to say - that was one mighty fine looking duck when they brought it out and showed it to us before carving it. Robyn

[Mayur]

Also, combining complex flavor combinations in small packages is what "classic" cuisine has been about since Michel Guerard, at least. I take it that you don't like nouvelle cuisine? Or new Spanish food? Or antojitos?

←

As for things like texture - well I am a person who likes crispy - bones - well developed flavors. Those food attributes come in large part from cooking things whole.

←

Do you think that it's not possible to cook things whole yet present them exactly how you like in a tasting-sized format?

If you like bones, that's a separate issue. You may well have a philosophical disconnect with many of the chefs out there, in which case I say more power to you, but also to them. Several chefs (and myself included, as a home cook) really prefer an Asian style of presentation in which you do *not* need to cut up your food. It's often prettier and lends itself to more creative plating.

[Mayur]

There's small - and then there's really small.  I think most of the tapas I had in Spain (and other places in the world when they became popular worldwide) were served in portions larger than Keller's full sized dishes.

←

That strikes me as counterfactual, given my own time living in Spain and related dining experiences.

Incidentally, it's not hard to get a whole duck, or poulet de Bresse, or whatever else you like, if you want that stuff. You just have to go to more traditional places. However, times change, for the better IMHO. People get bored cooking the same stuff over and over again, especially when it's easy enough to do from the perspective of technique. I can cook a poulet demi-deuil any day, in the style of Mere Filliard (or, more recognizably to current diners, Bocuse). But who cares? If you don't like cuisine that was created anywhere other than France pre-1965, there are plenty of bistros and old-guard French restaurants out there that will suit your taste. Expecting Michelin-starred establishments to hold with such a trite oeuvre strikes me as simply quixotic.

[robyn]

[That strikes me as counterfactual, given my own time living in Spain and related dining experiences.

Incidentally, it's not hard to get a whole duck, or poulet de Bresse, or whatever else you like, if you want that stuff. You just have to go to more traditional places. However, times change, for the better IMHO. People get bored cooking the same stuff over and over again, especially when it's easy enough to do from the perspective of technique. I can cook a poulet demi-deuil any day, in the style of Mere Filliard (or, more recognizably to current diners, Bocuse). But who cares? If you don't like cuisine that was created anywhere other than France pre-1965, there are plenty of bistros and old-guard French restaurants out there that will suit your taste. Expecting Michelin-starred establishments to hold with such a trite oeuvre strikes me as simply quixotic.

←

I got a whole duck at Per Se. It was brought to the table to be presented - and then carved. Served with a lot of other things. Yet I don't think of Per Se as a 1965 restaurant. And I know I couldn't make that dish. Doubt you could either.

So the issue is - why did Thomas Keller think that Breast of Stone Church Farm's Challan duck roti a la broche with braised swiss chard leaves and ribs en ravigote with poached pluots and sauteed mollard duck foie gras was perfectly ok in 2004 - 2005 - and 2006 - but somehow not ok in 2007? By the way - my husband's main that evening was Sirloin of Hallow Farm's Young Rabbit wrapped in applewood smoked bacon with sauteed fall squash, glazed Tokyo turnips, toasted pecans and rabbit jus.

These are definitely dishes one couldn't eat with chopsticks. Knives required. And the presentation was beautiful - even though it wasn't a bit Asian.

If Fat Guy says these items are being disappeared because they didn't sell because everyone going to Per Se insisted on having Oysters and Pearls - so they could post one of the 2000 pictures of Oysters and Pearls that you'll find here and on other web sites - and tell everyone that they ate Oysters and Pearls - ok. I'll buy that (maybe not the part about the photos - how many out of focus amateur pictures of Oysters and Pearls do I need to see). But don't tell me that it's 1965 food.

It's like - well if I'm going to buy an expensive purse - it has to be a Birkin - so everyone knows exactly where I bought it and how much I paid for it. Heaven forbid I should just buy something beautiful. Or eat something great that can't be identified readily by all those trendy people out there. Per Se isn't a place to go to eat great food - it's a place where I can put culinary notches on my belt.

And if - as you suggest - people get bored by cooking the same thing - why would Thomas Keller and his chefs want to cook the exact same meal for everyone who comes to the Keller restaurants on a given night? So don't tell me it's about boredom.

BTW - the thing about the teeth - here it is - written by a professional restaurant reviewer in London - not me:

"Yet while many of the flavours are politely interesting, the relentless pappy textures of mousses and foams and creams and poached meats really begins to grate. It is, in essence, the kind of food that a discerning astronaut or a dying billionaire with no teeth might enjoy, but I find myself desperate for a proper lunch - a perfect roast chicken, a crisp green salad and a glass or two of fine white burgundy. A cheese sandwich! Anything, instead of - oh God - another pool of Douglas fir puree which tastes like a cedar candle smells."

Robyn

[oakapple]

Over at the BruniBlog, Frank has yet another follow-up on last week's cult-of-the-chef article in the newspaper.

Money quote:

I think the issue is an important one. And I think it’s important that all sides of it be examined and explored.

Now that he's recognized the importance of examining "all sides," it would be nice to see him do so. While I think the issue is valid, his coverage of it last week was rather one-sided.

The new post is no great mine of insights, although there is one interesting long anecdote about a California restaurant from thirty or forty years ago. Neither Frank's correspondent nor Frank himself can identify the place.

Edited January 30, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

The wait is nearly over. Tomorrow, Frank Bruni reviews Gordon Ramsay at the London. The Eater oddsmakers have established two stars as the most likely outcome (3-1 odds). But Eater is taking the three-star action (6-1 odds) because he thinks Frank likes to surprise us.

That's the fun thing about Eater, who sets the odds and then bets against them in the same post:

Two stars is the most likely, all things considered, emotion aside; three stars is the bet we like, given the odds and our particular mood.

I think Eater has it about right. Given Frank's history, two stars is the most likely outcome, but three is certainly possible, and at 6-1 I would take that bet too. Edited January 30, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Mark, forgive my ignorance, but is Eater a person?

[oakapple]

Mark, forgive my ignorance, but is Eater a person?

←

Eater has two editors: Lockhart Steele and Ben Leventhal. It was an outgrowth of Curbed, which Steele founded. Leventhal previously ran a site called She Loves NY, which pretty much went dormant after Eater began. I think both of them contribute to Eater, but Leventhal appears to be the primary contributor, as Steele now runs a blogging empire of multiple sites, including Curbed in three cities (NY, LA, SF) and Eater in two (NY, LA).

[Nathan]

I'll be surprised if it's not three.

[oakapple]

I'll be surprised if it's not three.

←

Which was precisely what people said before the reviews of Café Gray, Gilt, Alto, and The Modern. Of course, people also said it about some places like Del Posto that did get the expected trifecta. One can predict three stars for just about any high-end place, and have a decent shot of being right. Edited January 30, 2007 by oakapple (log)