Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Sneakeater]

I have suffered the indignity of dining at a six inch deep counter staring at the wall three inches in front of me to eat at Noodle Bar. I have absolutely no problem with it. What bothers me is when people suggest that this is a viable alternative for the classic fine dining restaurant simply because they prefer not to have to wear a jacket or learn enough about food and wine to lose their sense of awkwardness in a French restaurant. And that this makes them "savvy."

←

I do think there's a distinction between Noodle Bar and Ssam. Nobody's giving Noodle Bar two stars, or claiming it's a "new paradigm". Your description above just isn't true of Ssam.

To me, the Ssam experience isn't sitting at an uncomfortable counter eating food (since to me it's a perfectly comfortable counter there). It's getting off work at 10:30 or so and going somewhere where I can walk in, sit down at the counter, and have food that is interesting, surprising, and exceedingly well-sourced and well-prepared, and not having to take forever to do it.

Having said that, though, I'm glad that high-quality alternatives to heavily ceremonial dining are appearing. I don't think I'm awkward at it (and I do think I know something about wine, if not classic haute cuisine). I just don't particularly enjoy it (the "it" being heavily ceremonial dining, not classic haute cuisine). I don't agree that it should be privileged on that ground alone.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

The whole conversation is interesting, but what it comes down to is not a problem with reviews or savviness. It's the fact that the current star sytem doesn't work for the types of restaurants that now exist.

I hate myself for saying this again, but for the last five years very few people (thank you SE) have agreed with me. Maybe the thinking is starting to turn - maybe??????

[Joe Gerard]

The whole conversation is interesting, but what it comes down to is not a problem with reviews or savviness. It's the fact that the current star sytem doesn't work for the types of restaurants that now exist.

I hate myself for saying this again, but for the last five years very few people (thank you SE) have agreed with me. Maybe the thinking is starting to turn - maybe??????

←

I agree, so I guess that makes three of us. I think even the Michelin rating system would be preferable, if it were combined with actual commentary. One advantage to Michelin is that the majority of restaurants would not receive a star, thereby eliminating much of the carping about whether zero, one or two stars is appropriate. In most cases it would force the focus to be on the content of the review, and not how many stars the critic awards. They have alternative categories set up for places that do not really fit into their star system.

Just a thought.

[oakapple]

my avid disagreement with Joe Gerard's post is that there is a new fine dining paradigm which can, in fact, co-exist with the old one.

In the first place, I am not sure how "new" it is. Clearly our society has gotten less formal in just about everything it does. There was a time when people got dressed up to get on an airplane, when just about all white collar employees wore suits to work, and when college professors called their students "Mr. This" and "Miss That."

The transition to a more casual attitude — not just in restaurants, but in everything — has been going on for decades. If you think "Wow! A place like Momofuku Ssam Bar is suddenly possible!", then you have no sense of history.

And in the second place, Gerard isn't saying that they can't co-exist, which would be absurd, given that they do co-exist.

I also don't buy that he is inherently opposed to formal fine dining -- he gave four stars to Per Se and Masa and reaffirmed them for JG.  He also gave three stars to Country and the revamped Picholine.  What I would say is different about Bruni in that respect is that he certainly doesn't automatically grant stars merely for competent execution of luxe food combined with a formal environment and service.

←

Has there ever been a NYT critic who automatically granted stars merely for competent execution in a formal environment? Of course not! In that sense, there is nothing new about Frank Bruni.

But his hostility towards traditional fine dining is so abundantly evident that it's impossible to miss. I could easily produce a dozen quotes from Bruni's writings, but the most recent one (in the Momofuku Ssam review) speaks for itself. As I noted above, it's possible to love Momofuku Ssam Bar without denigrating restaurants that offer a more luxurious experience. But Frank Bruni can't do that, which is what sets him apart from all of his predecessors.

The fact that he has this bias, does not mean that it can't occasionally be overcome. After all, he needs to give four stars to somebody. But if you re-read the Per Se review, you'll find the undercurrent of hostility to the format even there.

The whole conversation is interesting, but what it comes down to is not a problem with reviews or savviness. It's the fact that the current star sytem doesn't work for the types of restaurants that now exist.

←

This problem (if it is a problem at all) isn't new. Mimi Sheraton awarded three stars to Sammy's Roumanian. Ruth Reichl awarded three stars to Honmura An. Both establishments were really not comparable to "traditional" three-star restaurants.

[rich]

The whole conversation is interesting, but what it comes down to is not a problem with reviews or savviness. It's the fact that the current star sytem doesn't work for the types of restaurants that now exist.

←

This problem (if it is a problem at all) isn't new. Mimi Sheraton awarded three stars to Sammy's Roumanian. Ruth Reichl awarded three stars to Honmura An. Both establishments were really not comparable to "traditional" three-star restaurants.

←

I don't think the problem (and I do believe it is a problem for the NY Times) is that new either Marc. But I do think the NY Times, for whatever their illogical, ostrich mentality reasoning, has refused to address it.

[Fat Guy]

The Times tried to address the problem structurally by adding "$25 and Under," but there have been three challenges: first, the fine-dining critics poach the best restaurants from the "$25 and Under" critics therefore undermining the possibility of a non-star review being a serious honor; second, price isn't the only dividing line when it comes to levels of formality, for example a place like Peter Luger, though basically a beer hall, is as expensive as many fine-dining restaurants; third, the restaurant base has become so large and diverse that without a third price category it's not possible even to begin to have a comprehensive approach.

[oakapple]

This problem (if it is a problem at all) isn't new. Mimi Sheraton awarded three stars to Sammy's Roumanian. Ruth Reichl awarded three stars to Honmura An. Both establishments were really not comparable to "traditional" three-star restaurants.

←

I don't think the problem (and I do believe it is a problem for the NY Times) is that new either Marc. But I do think the NY Times, for whatever their illogical, ostrich mentality reasoning, has refused to address it.

←

But Rich, you said, "the current star system doesn't work for the types of restaurants that now exist" [emphasis added] implying there was a time when conditions were different, and the system did work. When, in your view, was that time?

[rich]

This problem (if it is a problem at all) isn't new. Mimi Sheraton awarded three stars to Sammy's Roumanian. Ruth Reichl awarded three stars to Honmura An. Both establishments were really not comparable to "traditional" three-star restaurants.

←

I don't think the problem (and I do believe it is a problem for the NY Times) is that new either Marc. But I do think the NY Times, for whatever their illogical, ostrich mentality reasoning, has refused to address it.

←

But Rich, you said, "the current star system doesn't work for the types of restaurants that now exist" [emphasis added] implying there was a time when conditions were different, and the system did work. When, in your view, was that time?

←

I can't give you an exact date Marc because I don't think one exists. It's been an on-going process as most things are.

If I may use a baseball analogy - each year and sometimes during a season, the good players adjust to what's going on around them. Sometimes a hitter must adjust if he sees pitchers are coming at him in a ceratin way. Likewise pitchers adjust if they notice hitters taking advantage of some aspect of their style.

When Claiborne created the NY Times star system in the mid 60's (1964 I think), the NYC restaurant scene was totally different than it is today. But the NY Times has failed to "adjust" to the changing landscape.

I used the term "now" in my first post because I'm talking about the present, but I didn't mean to indicate this is something that just occurred with the Times. A good editorial staff should never be stagnant. I my opinion, the NY Times restaurant reviews, with speficic reference to the star system, have remained buried within the last several decades of the 20th century.

Edited February 24, 2007 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

For those who may think that dining trends have undergone a singular shift recently, here's a curative quote from Bryan Miller in the Times:

If you listen to some restaurant-industry pundits, La Grenouille is just the type of expensive, opulent institution that is slated for extinction as ineluctably as the dinosaurs. In this era of austerity and a return to more ingenuous foods, they say, the dining public is turning away from haute cuisine and embracing little pizzas, pasta, coq au vin and grilled chicken.

So welcome to La Grenouille, Tuesday night, mid-January, traditionally the slowest time of the year for restaurants. The dining room is as packed as Bloomingdale’s during a post-holiday clearance.

He wrote that in 1991, sixteen years ago. I visited La Grenouille earlier this week, and it is pretty much the same as he found it then. The difference, of course, is that Miller didn't have it in for luxury dining, the way Frank Bruni does. Edited February 24, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[robyn]

...Apparently it is ok to subject your customers to hour long waits rather than take reservations, punish them with seating that borders on torture and rush them through their meals at warp speed as long as you don't perform any "starchy rituals" like those effete French guys...

←

I'm curious. What kinds of meals do you all think are appropriate at a place like this? The "grab a bite" after a late night at the office meal (when - presumably - there is little or no wait)? The "grab a bite" before an early movie/show meal (when - presumably - there is also little or no wait)? Those sound ok.

Can't see anyone waiting on line during "prime time" for a long time and then being rushed through dinner on a date (whether you're a 30 or 50 year old single or a married person on a "date" with your spouse). Or doing the same thing when you're having dinner with some friends. Am I wrong?

I like good food - but - unless you're alone - eating is also a social experience. And waiting on line for a long time - and then being rushed through meals - isn't conducive to pleasant social experiences IMO. I know people do it all the time. You'll wait 1-2 hours at any upscale casual chain restaurant here on a Saturday night. I just don't know what the point of it is.

BTW - I can also understand people not wanting to make a reservation at Per Se 60 days in advance to have dinner at "early bird special" times. Robyn

[oakapple]

BTW - I can also understand people not wanting to make a reservation at Per Se 60 days in advance to have dinner at "early bird special" times.  Robyn

←

I can understand just about every conceivable dining preference. But remember, somebody is reserving all of those tables at Per Se. It's almost like Yogi Berra's old comment, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

[robyn]

BTW - I can also understand people not wanting to make a reservation at Per Se 60 days in advance to have dinner at "early bird special" times.  Robyn

←

I can understand just about every conceivable dining preference. But remember, somebody is reserving all of those tables at Per Se. It's almost like Yogi Berra's old comment, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

←

I'm not saying Per Se isn't crowded. It is so crowded during normal dining hours - presumably with big shots - that out-of-towners like me (and probably "lesser" people who live in New York) can't get reservations except at silly dining hours (too early or too late for most peoples' tastes).

I think all this generational stuff may be overblown. If you are a 20 or 30-something person or couple - and you want to have dinner with friends you haven't seen for a while so you can talk and catch up on things - do you want to meet them someplace at 7:30 pm and then wait on line for over a hour so you can be rushed in and out of dinner in less than an hour? I don't think so - but perhaps I am wrong.

And I don't think you'd normally want to go to a place like Per Se either. Simply because most dinner dates aren't planned 2 months in advance (most of our dinner dates with friends are planned maybe 3 or 4 days in advance). I think most people - regardless of age - would like a place with good food where you can make a reservation on fairly short notice and have a really good meal served at a reasonable pace. Sadly - there aren't many like that where I live - so we usually settle for decent meals in pleasant surroundings. But I assume New York has more options than the small city where I live. Robyn

P.S. My interest in New York isn't idle. Think I'll be going there for a family function in May - and we'll probably try to arrange a dinner or two with (also) out of town cousins (although some are out of town from - like Staten Island ). We all like good food - none of us will wait on line for an hour - especially after spending the day flying in - and we definitely don't want the "bum's rush" when we eat. We once had a great "cousin's dinner" for 10 at Nobu. But Nobu is kind of old news these days. OTOH - perhaps it's still a very good restaurant.

Edited February 24, 2007 by robyn (log)

[Nathan]

Its the food that makes it fine dining.

What bothers me is when people suggest that this is a viable alternative for the classic fine dining restaurant simply because they prefer not to have to wear a jacket or learn enough about food and wine to lose their sense of awkwardness in a French restaurant. And that this makes them "savvy."

It takes effort to develop an appreciation of any art form. Unfortunately, I think many people are no longer willing to do so.

←

I see. I feel awkward in a French restaurant because I know jacks____t about food and wine. I get it.

Or maybe I care more about food then spending an extra $200 for ambience and comfort. I'm into food (and wine), you're into dining. I get it.

[rich]

It's almost like Yogi Berra's old comment, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

←

It's delightful that Yogi Berra gets quoted on eG more than any other non-food related person (though he did own a major share of Yoo Hoo at one time). In fact, he may be quoted more than any other person in general these days - and that's a very good thing.

[Sneakeater]

I think there's a mistaken assumption at play here. I think it may be because Joe G. appears not to have been to Momofuku Ssam yet and is assuming it's just like Momufuku Noodle Bar, which it isn't.

The mistaken assumption is that you're rushed in and out.

Let's talk about the two restaurants that I would say represent the "New Paradigm" that some are claiming here. One is Momofuku Ssam. The other is Bouley Upstairs. At both of them, you might have to wait up to an hour for a table during prime time. But at neither of them are you rushed out. Once you're seated, you eat till you're done. (Momofuku Noodle Bar is different -- but that's a "fast food" place.)

To the extent there is a "New Paradigm", what it consists of is food at a level way above casual served in very dressed-down, almost minimalist settings. Sure, oakapple is right that the haute French has been perceived as embattled for decades. But not by places like this.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

It's almost like Yogi Berra's old comment, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

←

It's delightful that Yogi Berra gets quoted on eG more than any other non-food related person (though he did own a major share of Yoo Hoo at one time). In fact, he may be quoted more than any other person in general these days - and that's a very good thing.

←

Of course, Yogi didn't say most of the things he said.

[Sneakeater]

I think most people - regardless of age - would like a place with good food where you can make a reservation on fairly short notice and have a really good meal served at a reasonable pace.  Sadly - there aren't many like that where I live - so we usually settle for decent meals in pleasant surroundings.  But I assume New York has more options than the small city where I live.

←

Actually, I agree with this. And (saying what Bux would have said if he were here to say it) it's the relative lack of places like this that I find most maddening about eating in New York. How can it be this way? It doesn't make sense.

That said, however, I have to note that the food at Momofuku and Bouley Upstairs is lightyears beyond anything you'd expect at the kinds of places we're now talking about.

[rich]

It's almost like Yogi Berra's old comment, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

←

It's delightful that Yogi Berra gets quoted on eG more than any other non-food related person (though he did own a major share of Yoo Hoo at one time). In fact, he may be quoted more than any other person in general these days - and that's a very good thing.

←

Of course, Yogi didn't say most of the things he said.

←

It's something we have in common - I don't say most of things I say.

[Nathan]

BTW - I can also understand people not wanting to make a reservation at Per Se 60 days in advance to have dinner at "early bird special" times.  Robyn

←

I can understand just about every conceivable dining preference. But remember, somebody is reserving all of those tables at Per Se. It's almost like Yogi Berra's old comment, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

←

I think all this generational stuff may be overblown. If you are a 20 or 30-something person or couple - and you want to have dinner with friends you haven't seen for a while so you can talk and catch up on things - do you want to meet them someplace at 7:30 pm and then wait on line for over a hour so you can be rushed in and out of dinner in less than an hour? I don't think so - but perhaps I am wrong.

←

do people wait for an hour (or more)....absolutely.

no one gets rushed out of Ssam bar in an hour...not unless you order one dish or something. you could easily have a three hour meal there.

[Nathan]

I think there's a mistaken assumption at play here.  I think it may be because Joe G. appears not to have been to Momofuku Ssam yet and is assuming it's just like Momufuku Noodle Bar, which it isn't.

The mistaken assumption is that you're rushed in and out.

Let's talk about the two restaurants that I would say represent the "New Paradigm" that some are claiming here.  One is Momofuku Ssam.  The other is Bouley Upstairs.  At both of them, you might have to wait up to an hour for a table during prime time.  But at neither of them are you rushed out.  Once you're seated, you eat till you're done.  (Momofuku Noodle Bar is different -- but that's a "fast food" place.)

To the extent there is a "New Paradigm", what it consists of is food at a level way above casual served in very dressed-down, almost minimalist settings.  Sure, oakapple is right that the haute French has been perceived as embattled for decades.  But not by places like this.

←

word.

oh wait, you're saying he hasn't even been there? so he was attacking Bruni's review as "laughable" and "indefensible"...calling me stupid, non-savvy and ignorant...when he was talking out of his a____ the entire time?

[robyn]

I think there's a mistaken assumption at play here.  I think it may be because Joe G. appears not to have been to Momofuku Ssam yet and is assuming it's just like Momufuku Noodle Bar, which it isn't.

The mistaken assumption is that you're rushed in and out.

Let's talk about the two restaurants that I would say represent the "New Paradigm" that some are claiming here.  One is Momofuku Ssam.  The other is Bouley Upstairs.  At both of them, you might have to wait up to an hour for a table during prime time.  But at neither of them are you rushed out.  Once you're seated, you eat till you're done.  (Momofuku Noodle Bar is different -- but that's a "fast food" place.)

To the extent there is a "New Paradigm", what it consists of is food at a level way above casual served in very dressed-down, almost minimalist settings.  Sure, oakapple is right that the haute French has been perceived as embattled for decades.  But not by places like this.

←

Bruni implied in his review that it was an "eat and get out" kind of place:

"And the backless stools at the counter and tables, the possibility of hour-plus waits, the absence of any coffee or tea and the one throwaway dessert, a mochi ice cream sampler, add up to a few inconveniences more than even many free-spirited diners will want to endure...Mr. Chang doesn’t really want you to linger."

Note that I have been in some very high end restaurants like this - e.g., high end sushi restaurants in Japan. They have their place. It's a question of what you're looking for in a restaurant. Robyn

[Nathan]

here's the thing....my perception is that there was a time, not so long ago, when there were two kinds of restaurants in NY....fine dining...continental inspired or haute French, and everything else (mainly cheaper ethnic places).

The Times star system in that time was predicated on second category being no-star (or maybe) one-star restaurants...while two, three and four stars were reserved for haute dining.

Well, there's a lot more variety now...and a lot more restaurants somewhere else on the continuum. Obviously, some people would prefer to retain the format of the 1950's (thus we have people complaining that Perry Street (which has pretty formal service) doesn't have table cloths, etc. Meanwhile, the Times has recognized that the dining milieu has changed and has adjusted accordingly. The four star level has remained sacrosant...the other stars have been adjusted accordingly.

An explicit list of factors has been given: food, service, ambience and price. Each critic weighs those factors differently...but they're all supposed to use them. Bruni has chosen to weigh food and price heavily and the others much less so. Thus, accounting for those factors, there is nothing inherently illogical or dissonant with Ssam Bar and Gordon Ramsay receiving the same rating. If you insist upon the old categories..then I suppose it seems bizarre. But there is no rationale that I can see for the Times to hold onto archaic distinctions.

[Nathan]

I think there's a mistaken assumption at play here.  I think it may be because Joe G. appears not to have been to Momofuku Ssam yet and is assuming it's just like Momufuku Noodle Bar, which it isn't.

The mistaken assumption is that you're rushed in and out.

Let's talk about the two restaurants that I would say represent the "New Paradigm" that some are claiming here.  One is Momofuku Ssam.  The other is Bouley Upstairs.  At both of them, you might have to wait up to an hour for a table during prime time.  But at neither of them are you rushed out.   Once you're seated, you eat till you're done.  (Momofuku Noodle Bar is different -- but that's a "fast food" place.)

To the extent there is a "New Paradigm", what it consists of is food at a level way above casual served in very dressed-down, almost minimalist settings.  Sure, oakapple is right that the haute French has been perceived as embattled for decades.  But not by places like this.

←

Bruni implied in his review that it was an "eat and get out" kind of place:

"And the backless stools at the counter and tables, the possibility of hour-plus waits, the absence of any coffee or tea and the one throwaway dessert, a mochi ice cream sampler, add up to a few inconveniences more than even many free-spirited diners will want to endure...Mr. Chang doesn’t really want you to linger."

Note that I have been in some very high end restaurants like this - e.g., high end sushi restaurants in Japan. They have their place. It's a question of what you're looking for in a restaurant. Robyn

←

well, you're certainly not likely to linger over coffee for a half hour at the end of your meal. but frankly, it's hard to explain if you haven't been there.

[tupac17616]

Bruni implied in his review that it was an "eat and get out" kind of place:

"And the backless stools at the counter and tables, the possibility of hour-plus waits, the absence of any coffee or tea and the one throwaway dessert, a mochi ice cream sampler, add up to a few inconveniences more than even many free-spirited diners will want to endure...Mr. Chang doesn’t really want you to linger."

Note that I have been in some very high end restaurants like this - e.g., high end sushi restaurants in Japan.  They have their place.  It's a question of what you're looking for in a restaurant.  Robyn

Bruni's implication could not be further from the truth, as sneak and nathan have already suggested. Hell, last time I was there, it literally was about a 3 1/2 hour meal. And a damn good one, at that.

[Sneakeater]

Part of something's being a "New Paradigm" is that it's hard to describe or explain to someone who hasn't been there. Because it's "new" -- outside the current paradigm.

That's why many perfectly reasonable responses I could imagine people having would just be wrong.

Like, "what's so 'new' about good food in a casual setting? That's what Danny Meyer created with Union Square Cafe and perfected with Gramercy Tavern." But those places aren't even close to what we're talking about here. The quality is far beyond Union Square and at least the original Grammercy Tavern. And the sense of improvisational cooking at the new places -- this is where it gets hard to explain -- really is something new. You don't know what'll appear on the menu at Momofuku Ssam every time you go. And at Upstairs, the menu has the sushi section, the Bouley section, they'll add an Italian section . . . whatever.

Another one is, "why criticize the service at EMP for being too informal for the food if you're going to celebrate these so-called 'new' places for minimalist service?" The answer to that is the old problem of the middlebrow. For me, you either go "high art" or "low art" -- Godard or Edgar Ulmer -- but all that stuff in the middle (you know, Oscar-winning "best pictures") is just a lot of mush. The atmosphere and service at these places is dressed-down way beyond just "casual". But on the other hand, it's very serious: you are always aware that the entire staff feels like they're part of an important shared enterprise. They're just not putting on a lot of airs about it. But again, I guess you have to go to these places to know what I mean.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)