Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[robyn]

Robert - An added note about wine. I can't drink wine - but my husband does. He usually does wine pairings. He did two this trip. In the $30-40 dollar range. And they were both excellent (the hotel restaurant even had a full class of Vueve in its pairing with the amuse). But too much wine - as he found out to his dismay the next mornings!

I spent some time talking with a food/beverage manager at the Four Seasons. She buys wine for the hotel. She confirmed what just about everyone knows these days. That unless you're talking about really big old bottles (or really big newer bottles - many of which aren't fit for drinking yet) - there is a glut of grapes/wine on the market these days. Prices are plunging - and quality is soaring. So it is inexcusable for a bar/restaurant not to offer fairly high quality drinkable younger wines at reasonable prices. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

The evidence for the proposition that "choice seems to be disappearing" is scant at best. There are only a handful of restaurants I can think of in all of North America where tasting menus are the only option. In New York, is there a single restaurant besides Per Se that requires eating in this manner? I suppose Masa requires omakase, but that's a different species of restaurant and I can't think of another Japanese place that operates that way. (Neither Per Se nor Masa is an indigenous New York restaurant, by the way.) Jean Georges, Le Bernardin, Daniel, Bouley, Gramercy Tavern, even the avant garde WD-50 -- all these places have either a la carte menus or prix fixe menus with many choices per course. Ducasse never limited choice in this manner. I think it would be premature to call mandatory tasting menus a trend. More like a choice. So there are a couple of restaurants here and there that operate in this manner. So what? If you don't like tasting menus, don't go to them.

The thing is, plenty of people absolutely love tasting menus. They want to taste as many things as possible in an evening. It's a legitimate preference -- I can't see the point in calling tasting menus "the scourge of serious dining." Find me one great chef in the world who believes that. Every top restaurant I can think of offers a menu degustation, with pride. The people who order such menus aren't idiots.

Nor am I convinced that tasting menus are labor saving devices. While it's true that having two or four people at a table eat the same food can mean less cooking per course, tasting menus typically involve 2-3 times as many dishes going out to the table. There may also be more than one tasting menu available, so a four-top may order a 2x2 tasting, say two seasonal tasting menus and two seasonal vegetarian menus.

Moreover, signature dishes are alive and well. That modern naming conventions don't support the notion of quaint designations like "Peach Melba" and "Caesar salad" doesn't change anything -- it just means that current tastes don't run towards naming dishes after people, places and things. But if you go to most any top restaurant you'll find signature dishes aplenty. Let's list a few:

Jean Georges: "Young garlic soup with thyme, sauteed frog legs with parsley," "Sea scallops, caper-raisin emulsion, cauliflower"

Daniel: "Paupiette of black sea bass in a crisp potato shell with tender leeks and a Syrah sauce"

Cafe Gray: "Herbed risotto with mushroom fricassee," "Braised short rib of beef with soft grits and meaux mustard"

Per Se: "Oysters & Pearls," "Macaroni & Cheese"

Nobu: "New style sashimi," "Broiled black cod with miso"

So what if Daniel Boulud doesn't call his paupiette of black sea bass "Sea Bass ala Fred"? It doesn't change anything. It's still a signature, it's still great, people remember it, they come back and order it -- it's just not named after Fred. Big deal.

[robyn]

Fat Guy - I think Per Se is alarming enough. If Keller - arguably the most famous chef in the US - does something - I think others will follow. Note that for a lot of people - like the younger couple from Charlotte who dined next to us one night in Atlanta - well Per Se was their #1 destination when they went to New York last year. I suspect that is the case for a lot of younger people.

We were about their age when we first started "fine dining" - and I think that if you start out your "learning" in a certain way - that will influence you greatly in later years. Look at students who start learning mathematics by learning "whole math".

I think the important thing isn't simply a few restaurants in New York that won't be around 20 years from now. It's educating a generation of diners.

The only reason some people want to do as many things as possible in an evening is because their fine dining experience is a once in a lifetime or every 5 years kind of thing. Is that what you want? Fine dining restaurants that cater to "one timers"? On my part - I probably don't get to a lot of these restaurants more than once in my lifetime (although I do get to a fair number of them). I am content to leave with "less than everything" - if for no other reason than I can't eat a ton of rich food without throwing up. Everything - even the best - in moderation. I think that's a good way to go through life. Keeps you coming back for more.

The tasting menu if served exclusively at a restaurant is a money and time and labor saver. Certainly you won't dispute that.

As for signature dishes - of the restaurants and dishes you mention - I've only eaten at 3 - but I just have menus for 1 - Per Se. Oysters and Pearls was only on the tasting menu - and mac and cheese wasn't on the menu at all. I don't recall any of the dishes you mentioned for JG and Nobu - but my meals at those places were 5+ years ago. A signature dish that isn't on the menu all the time (assuming it's in season) at a "destination restaurant" isn't a signature dish in my opinion.

Finally - with regard to Japanese "menus" - e.g., Masa. I haven't been to Masa - but if it is a traditional Japanese sushi/sashimi restaurant - which I think it is - well you go to a restaurant like that to eat seafood (mostly fish but some non-fish seafood things). And you leave it in the chef's hands to offer you what he thinks is seasonal and best and fresh that day (because that's what he got at the market in the morning). That's just the nature of the restaurant. A very limited range of offerings. You'd never go to a restaurant like that if you had a fish/seafood allergy or didn't like fish/seafood or didn't trust the chef to pick out what was best that day at the market. Robyn

P.S. I guess the other "no-choice" restaurant is Alinea. No choice - eat 'til you're stuffed kind of place. Since - what was it - Gourmet Magazine - ranked it the #1 restaurant in the US - I don't think the trend of "no choice" - "eat like a pig" can be dismissed so easily. And I'm choosing my words when I say "eat like a pig". I don't want my dining choices being dictated by younger people with poor dining habits who weigh more than 200 or 300 pounds because they eat a lot of junk 364 days a year and at a fine dining restaurant once a year.

Edited January 29, 2007 by robyn (log)

[Fat Guy]

Per Se has more people working in the kitchen, at a higher labor cost, than any restaurant I know of. Those tasting menus are incredibly labor intensive. I believe Keller when he says he switched to an all tasting menu format to give the customer a better experience of his approach to cuisine, and I see nothing wrong with that. Having spoken to at least a hundred people who've dined at Per Se, the overwhelming preference I've heard articulated is for the tasting menu. If you owned a restaurant, and 1/4 of the customers were choosing a certain menu and 90% of them were walking away less happy than they'd have been if they'd chosen the tasting menu, would you leave the other menu on just for the 10% who'd have preferred it? Chefs have to make choices, Keller has made his, it's fine with me. And, no, having that occur at one restaurant in the city doesn't alarm me, especially since I like tasting menus just fine, but even if I didn't it wouldn't bother me. I fail to see why it's such an affront, such a big deal. Maybe those who don't like it just aren't the customers Keller is going after. Not every restaurant is for everyone. That's life.

As for those signatures at Jean Georges and Nobu, as far as I know they're on the menu every day all year round. They were almost certainly on the menu when you ate there five years ago. You may not have had the information that they were signatures, or you may not remember them, but they were probably there.

[robyn]

Per Se has more people working in the kitchen, at a higher labor cost, than any restaurant I know of. Those tasting menus are incredibly labor intensive. I believe Keller when he says he switched to an all tasting menu format to give the customer a better experience of his approach to cuisine, and I see nothing wrong with that. Having spoken to at least a hundred people who've dined at Per Se, the overwhelming preference I've heard articulated is for the tasting menu. If you owned a restaurant, and 1/4 of the customers were choosing a certain menu and 90% of them were walking away less happy than they'd have been if they'd chosen the tasting menu, would you leave the other menu on just for the 10% who'd have preferred it? Chefs have to make choices, Keller has made his, it's fine with me. And, no, having that occur at one restaurant in the city doesn't alarm me, especially since I like tasting menus just fine, but even if I didn't it wouldn't bother me. I fail to see why it's such an affront, such a big deal. Maybe those who don't like it just aren't the customers Keller is going after. Not every restaurant is for everyone. That's life.

As for those signatures at Jean Georges and Nobu, as far as I know they're on the menu every day all year round. They were almost certainly on the menu when you ate there five years ago. You may not have had the information that they were signatures, or you may not remember them, but they were probably there.

←

How do you think eliminating the choice in the Per Se menu will affect the restaurant's bottom line?

Also - do you think it's possible that the average diner in a place like Per Se these days is someone who doesn't know enough about dining to choose courses? Like the people sitting next to us this weekend. They had never heard of *any* cheeses on the cheese course (and I can assure you - the choices weren't all that exotic - except for the cheese from Thomasville Georgia ).

Perhaps when he is saying that he is switching to only a tasting menu - he means that these days - his average client can't be trusted to pick a menu (which I find entirely plausible). FWIW - I didn't have the tasting menu at Per Se - and I really liked the food (had some other issues - but not with the food). Robyn

[Fat Guy]

How do you think eliminating the choice in the Per Se menu will affect the restaurant's bottom line?

←

People will pay pretty much whatever Per Se charges, for either type of menu. The tasting is up to $250 now. There's obviously some theoretical price they could charge for the non-tasting menu so it wouldn't be a money loser. Whether that's $190 or $249.95 I don't know, but there's no economic reason they couldn't price it for profit. The issue is that Keller's style of cuisine is, in Keller's opinion, better appreciated in the long tasting format. I happen to agree with him.

[Mayur]

Anyway - I am beginning to think that New York simply isn't that much fun to dine in these days.  Too full of itself.  We were pleasantly surprised by Atlanta this trip.  We go a couple of times of year (it's a 5 hour drive) - and try different things.  There is a big deal emphasis in Atlanta these days on the "slow food movement".  There's a new magazine - Edible Atlanta (Celebrating the Bounty of Local Foods, Season by Season).  And even artisan cheeses from Thomasville (Georgia).  The chefs aren't as talented as the best in the world.  Nor are the ingredients the best in the world.  And the customers' incomes are modest by world standards (which is why a four course menu at one of the best restaurants in town costs $72).  But it's enjoyable having very good meals prepared by people who are trying to - quite literally - cook up new things.  Without a lot of attitude.  I can only imagine what New York would be like given its talent and access to big spending customers if it brought the same attitude to bear on the dining experience.  Robyn

←

I utterly disagree that this is a real problem with the NYC dining scene.

First off, I think Bruni is simply wrong on a number of the issues he cites. Getting pushed toward a tasting menu by a server is NOT the sort of experience I have had at any truly great restaurant in NY; it *has* happened to me in Chicago, and in Paris for that matter. The use of the term "chef" (no name attached) is at least as old as the 80s, judging by my dinner at Lucas-Carton then. People have been ceding power to restaurants for decades; it's basically a cliche that a touristy place like Tavern on the Green can have terrible food and service and the tourists will flock nonetheless. Same thing with cafes on the Champs-Elysees, or old hotel dining rooms in London, or "celebrity" restaurants in LA.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, his article is a polemic: A simplistic, perhaps intentionally hyperbolic and occasionally misrepresentative rant. One could argue that "the balance of power has shifted between chef and customer," but this is largely a function of the new foodie-ism, specifically the poseur element: Customers want to look "in the know," so they enshrine chefs as deities and cede a lot of power to the establishment. IOW, people have made a religious experience out of dining, and thus have opened themselves up to getting suckered into participating in "fine dining" purely for the experience of doing it (and telling everyone else they're doing it) rather than actually enjoying good food and service for the sake of those things. I don't agree, for that matter, that Jean-Georges Vongerichten or Danny Meyer are actually taking all that much advantage of it; JG is better than it's ever been, IMHO, and EMP at least is reaching a vastly elevated new standard.

Third, IMX and IMHO, the dining scene in NY is more diverse and vibrant than it ever has been. For all that too many people are willing to worship at the altar of the celebrity chef, an increasing number of diners is knowledgeable and demanding of high quality.

[The fact that Bruni knocks the soundtrack at Babbo strikes me as highly amusing. Everyone *knows* Batali likes playing rock music at his restaurant; it's a famous idiosyncrasy. Plus Frank basically knocked a star off the review just for the music. IMHO, Babbo represents some of the best food for the money there is. That's why most people go; I'm sure there are a fair number of tourists who go because it's famous, but that's always been the case with any number of restaurants.]

[Mayur]

Perhaps when he is saying that he is switching to only a tasting menu - he means that these days - his average client can't be trusted to pick a menu (which I find entirely plausible).

←

No. That's not it at all. Check out the The French Laundry Cookbook, p.14, on the law of diminishing returns. Essentially, Keller wants the shock of delight from that first taste of a dish to be the only thing the diner experiences. So he serves lots of small courses rather than a few larger ones.

This sort of thing is why Bruni's article is especially wrongheaded. If one were to take it to its logical conclusion, he'd basically be saying that a chef shouldn't have any leeway to exercise control over the final product placed before the diner. That point isn't even incorrect or objectionable; it's just nonsensical.

[oakapple]

Fat Guy - I think Per Se is alarming enough......

Alarming? If that's alarming, what adjective is left for things like—Darfur?

Seriously, Per Se is into its third year. Imitation usually comes quickly in the restaurant industry, but no more tasting-menu-only restaurants have opened in New York. I think it's safe to say that those who find tasting menus an affront to their sensibilities will still have other fine dining options for a long, long time to come.

The only reason some people want to do as many things as possible in an evening is because their fine dining experience is a once in a lifetime or every 5 years kind of thing.

←

We've definitely got the message you don't like tasting menus, but you should be careful about assuming that people with different preferences are experientially deprived. You know, maybe the people ordering tasting menus actually like them. Why is it necessary to assume that there's something wrong with this?

[Nathan]

You know, people grumbled about the introduction of the steel plow too.

I agree with everything FG wrote...and most of what Mayur wrote. (I agreed with some of Bruni's article -- there is a fair amount of crass commercialism and chef-worship in today's restaurants that irritates me as well -- see the Varietal thread -- chefs shouldn't be compared to Picasso for _____ sakes!)

As has been noted, I don't think Alinea or Per Se are serving tasting menus -- only in order to save on labor. Not when they have as many cooks in the kitchen as diners (literally!). Yeah, they like cooking sous vide -- there's a reason for that -- things taste better -- without having to smother them in butter (the real reason why "classic" dishes were actually tasty).

As for choice -- frankly, if I'm at a great restaurant -- I don't want it. Seriously. How the heck do I know which will be both more interesting and good between "seared foie gras, peach reduction, ossetra broth" and "brussel sprouts, roasted endive, chorizo water"?

If I'm at eating at a diner, I'm going to pick the dish with the tastiest ingredients. If I'm eating at a great restaurant, how the heck do I know how to choose between those two? I want to see what a great chef can do with something that I couldn't work with.

Anyone with a modicum of cooking knowledge can make an excellent dinner with luxe ingredients, including me. So, why am I dining out again? I hate sweet potatoes, but if Keller or Achatz or Jean-Georges want to make a dish featuring them....I'll be the first in line.

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.

[Sneakeater]

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.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

"also the risk of missing something really special that you might otherwise not be attracted to."

this is by far the most significant factor in my ordering calculus.

I still recall fondly the menu concept at a midwest restaurant (regrettably a relatively mediocre one -- though the chef moved on to better things with more financial backing) which was simply organized as "chicken", "beef", "squab", "Fish 1", "Fish 2", "mollusks" etc....

I thought the idea was terrific...

[Sneakeater]

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.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Pan]

[...]As for choice -- frankly, if I'm at a great restaurant -- I don't want it.  Seriously.  How the heck do I know which will be both more interesting and good between "seared foie gras, peach reduction, ossetra broth" and "brussel sprouts, roasted endive, chorizo water"?[...]

←

You don't, but isn't it a fair point that people who don't eat various foods (such as pig) are thereby inconvenienced or excluded from having the pleasure of the restaurant's cuisine?

[Sneakeater]

But Pan, I don't think anyone's arguing that restaurants should necessarily follow Per Se's lead of going "all tasting all the time." I think they're responding to a position that sounds a lot like "tasting menus should be abolished."

[Fat Guy]

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.

[Sneakeater]

Of course, part of the problem is that the demagogues on Bruni's blog -- and I think this article was playing to people like that -- like to think that famous chefs and high-end "fine dining" places are actively anti-diner. Which is only more evidence that they don't eat a lot in truly top-of-the-line restaurants.

[Nathan]

"You don't, but isn't it a fair point that people who don't eat various foods (such as pig) are thereby inconvenienced or excluded from having the pleasure of the restaurant's cuisine?"

so? there are plenty of restaurants where they can eat....

someone who doesn't like anything spicy is denied the pleasures of Sriphithai or S&T....so?

a vegetarian is denied 99% of the menu at Momofuku Saam Bar...(not that it prevents them from writing the place up anyway)

[Pan]

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?)

Edited January 29, 2007 by Pan (log)

[Pan]

But Pan, I don't think anyone's arguing that restaurants should necessarily follow Per Se's lead of going "all tasting all the time."  I think they're responding to a position that sounds a lot like "tasting menus should be abolished."

←

For the record, I think that "tasting menus should be abolished" is a silly position.

[robyn]

First off, I think Bruni is simply wrong on a number of the issues he cites. Getting pushed toward a tasting menu by a server is NOT the sort of experience I have had at any truly great restaurant in NY; it *has* happened to me in Chicago, and in Paris for that matter. The use of the term "chef" (no name attached) is at least as old as the 80s, judging by my dinner at Lucas-Carton then. People have been ceding power to restaurants for decades; it's basically a cliche that a touristy place like Tavern on the Green can have terrible food and service and the tourists will flock nonetheless. Same thing with cafes on the Champs-Elysees, or old hotel dining rooms in London, or "celebrity" restaurants in LA.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, his article is a polemic: A simplistic, perhaps intentionally hyperbolic and occasionally misrepresentative rant. One could argue that "the balance of power has shifted between chef and customer," but this is largely a function of the new foodie-ism, specifically the poseur element: Customers want to look "in the know," so they enshrine chefs as deities and cede a lot of power to the establishment. IOW, people have made a religious experience out of dining, and thus have opened themselves up to getting suckered into participating in "fine dining" purely for the experience of doing it (and telling everyone else they're doing it) rather than actually enjoying good food and service for the sake of those things. I don't agree, for that matter, that Jean-Georges Vongerichten or Danny Meyer are actually taking all that much advantage of it; JG is better than it's ever been, IMHO, and EMP at least is reaching a vastly elevated new standard.

Third, IMX and IMHO, the dining scene in NY is more diverse and vibrant than it ever has been. For all that too many people are willing to worship at the altar of the celebrity chef, an increasing number of diners is knowledgeable and demanding of high quality.

[The fact that Bruni knocks the soundtrack at Babbo strikes me as highly amusing. Everyone *knows* Batali likes playing rock music at his restaurant; it's a famous idiosyncrasy. Plus Frank basically knocked a star off the review just for the music. IMHO, Babbo represents some of the best food for the money there is. That's why most people go; I'm sure there are a fair number of tourists who go because it's famous, but that's always been the case with any number of restaurants.]

←

What is EMP?

Funny about Babbo. I never even noticed the music. Guess it agreed with me. I did notice that everything we had - except for the pasta (which was excellent) - was mediocre.

I can't believe that the attitude of a lot of diners (which you seem to think is bad - and I agree) won't affect a fair number of restaurants. Assuming a restaurant caters to it. I always thought the role of a great restaurant was to treat me to a great dining experience - which in turn would teach me about food. It's a matter of the restaurant "bringing me up" - as opposed to me bringing the restaurant down. I guess it remains to be seen how various restaurants respond to changes in their clientele. Robyn

[Nathan]

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.

EMP is "Eleven Madison Park" -- once a beautiful, somewhat mediocre restaurant that is now garnering rave reviews under Daniel Humm

Edited January 29, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[vivin]

WD-50 is very accomodating to dietary restrictions/preferences when ordering their tasting menu.

[robyn]

Perhaps when he is saying that he is switching to only a tasting menu - he means that these days - his average client can't be trusted to pick a menu (which I find entirely plausible).

←

No. That's not it at all. Check out the The French Laundry Cookbook, p.14, on the law of diminishing returns. Essentially, Keller wants the shock of delight from that first taste of a dish to be the only thing the diner experiences. So he serves lots of small courses rather than a few larger ones.

This sort of thing is why Bruni's article is especially wrongheaded. If one were to take it to its logical conclusion, he'd basically be saying that a chef shouldn't have any leeway to exercise control over the final product placed before the diner. That point isn't even incorrect or objectionable; it's just nonsensical.

←

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

[robyn]

Fat Guy - I think Per Se is alarming enough......

Alarming? If that's alarming, what adjective is left for things like—Darfur?

Seriously, Per Se is into its third year. Imitation usually comes quickly in the restaurant industry, but no more tasting-menu-only restaurants have opened in New York. I think it's safe to say that those who find tasting menus an affront to their sensibilities will still have other fine dining options for a long, long time to come.

The only reason some people want to do as many things as possible in an evening is because their fine dining experience is a once in a lifetime or every 5 years kind of thing.

←

We've definitely got the message you don't like tasting menus, but you should be careful about assuming that people with different preferences are experientially deprived. You know, maybe the people ordering tasting menus actually like them. Why is it necessary to assume that there's something wrong with this?

←

Sometimes I like tasting menus - sometimes I don't. Depends on the menu the restaurant is serving the night I'm dining and the amount of food involved. It's really as simple as that. Robyn

P.S. Also - since a lot of restaurants insist that both my husband and I have the tasting menu if one of us wants it - my husband and I have to agree that the tasting menu is to our liking (very unlikely - since we tend to like different things).

Edited January 30, 2007 by robyn (log)