Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Sneakeater]

Re: the "Star System".

I'm not sure there was ever really a time when the Star System "worked" in New York.

Remember, when the system was first being formulated under Claiborne and Sheraton, the critics felt free to bestow idiosyncratic ratings on places that now would be considered outside the system's purview. Fat Guy has said that this was proper back in the days when Giants Walked The Earth, but that, in order to last, the system had to be institutionalized, so that it could be applied credibly by people whose authority derives from their position on the Times (rather than the position's deriving its authority from its inhabitant, as in the days of Claiborne and Sheraton). Bryan Miller is the prime example of the institutionalization of the system; in many ways, he seemed to view the maintenance of the Star System as one of his primary responsibilities (and he certainly seemed to continue to feel that way even after his departure, if his famous letter about Ruth Reichl is any evidence).

The point here is that it is the "institutionalized" Star System that is almost necessarily "out of touch" with the reality of New York dining. It's a construct. It's artificial. It's based on distinctions that are more important to the maintenance of internal consistency than they are to any sense of how people actually eat.

But the "institutionalized" Star System didn't always exist.

Indeed, the earlier pre-"institutionalized" Star System will feel familiar to anyone who's thought about the "new" so-called "post-star" era. You like Sammy's Romanian? Three stars. Chock Full o'Nuts? Give it a star review. You get the feeling, from those early Claiborne/Sheraton days, of some very knowledgeable, passionate, engaged people looking at the New York dining scene, top-to-bottom, and writing about whatever caught their attention. Considering it all worthy. I don't think they would have had a problem with giving a star review to the taco counter in the back of the deli on 10th Ave. near 47th St.

As Fat Guy has said, this kind of non-system system only works if the writers have their own inherent authority. I'm not really trying to call for its return. I'm just trying to (a) explain why the "institutionalized" Star System is, to me, doomed from the start as an artificial construct, and (b) counter the suggestion that there was a time when the "institutionalized" Star System did accurately reflect New York dining. Because at the time when you would think that most likely be true, there was no institutionalized Star System. There was a much more free-wheeling system, which feels absolutely "contemporary" to me.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Joe Gerard]

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.

←

I have been to both several times. Ssam Bar had a line of people waiting to get in each time. I don't like to linger under those circumtances, and there wasn't anything to keep me there longer (dessert, comfort, etc.) Even Bruni acknowledged as much in his review.

The food is often great, the comfort level not very good. My point was simply that it wasn't enough for Bruni to state this. He had to make his positive review a polemic against a different type of restaurant he clearly has no use for. He anointed fans of Ssam Bar as torch bearers for a new type of dining. Perhaps they are simply people who really love the food but wish the place was a little more comfortable. Sort of like the way I feel about Prune.

I am hardly hung up on spending a fortune for pomp and circumstance. My personal favorite restaurant, Au Pied de Cochon in Montreal, is hardly upscale, and Picard is quite comparable to Chang in sensibility, if a bit more experienced.

I hope they are both around for a very long time. I just don't believe it has to be at the expense of any other type of restaurant.

[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

←

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.

←

Perhaps it's hard to explain quantum mechanics - or a perfect golf swing - in words - but a restaurant really shouldn't be that hard. So try me. Robyn

[robyn]

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.

←

Guess you can't believe everything you read in the papers these days. I gave up on the NYT in a lot of areas a long time ago - but if even the food reporting isn't credible - maybe I'll just save 400 bucks a year and use it to buy a swell pair of shoes. Robyn

[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.

←

Guess you can't believe everything you read in the papers these days. I gave up on the NYT in a lot of areas a long time ago - but if even the food reporting isn't credible - maybe I'll just save 400 bucks a year and use it to buy a swell pair of shoes. Robyn

←

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[oakapple]

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.

This is so completely, ridiculously wrong that I want to laugh out loud. Remember, at one time Peter Luger, with its beer-hall esthetic and gruff service, was a four-star restaurant. That was about 40 years ago. One can give countless examples in the intervening years when non-French, non-Continental restaurants received two stars or more. Those who say that Momofuku Ssam Bar signals a new paradigm are really exaggerating.

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.

Again, totally wrong. Claiborne, Sheraton, Reichl --- they were all willing to give two and three stars, and occasionally even four stars, to restaurants that break the classic mold. Frank Bruni is no trend-setter.

...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.

←

Here again, a failure to do basic research. To give but one example: between Sheraton, Miller and Reichl, La Grenouille yo-yo'd anywhere from one to four stars. It's not as if Bruni is the first critic to give low ratings to under-performing high-end restaurants.

One, and only one thing, is significantly different about Frank Bruni's application of the star system, and Joe Gerard nailed it:

The food is often great, the comfort level not very good. My point was simply that it wasn't enough for Bruni to state this. He had to make his positive review a polemic against a different type of restaurant he clearly has no use for.

←

Edited February 25, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

I'm not sure there was ever really a time when the Star System "worked" in New York.

←

Whether you think it "works" depends on what you're trying to get out of it. I sometimes think that the system's harshest critics are expecting more than star ratings are meant to be, or indeed ever were.

The more I read the old reviews, the more I think that Frank Bruni's free-wheeling style is more-or-less in keeping with most of his predecessors, with the possible exception of Bryan Miller. Bruni's problem is incompetence: there are large swathes of the dining spectrum for which he has no affinity.

[Fat Guy]

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.

←

If La Grenouille is packed, it's because there used to be twenty or thirty restaurants just like it and now there are two or three (La Grenouille, Le Perigord, and . . . ?). So all the demand for that kind of experience is now concentrated in less than 10% of the seats.

I'm not sure how Miller's quote is relevant. Restaurants like Upstairs and Momofuku are not "turning away from haute cuisine and embracing little pizzas, pasta, coq au vin and grilled chicken." What they serve is best thought of as haute cuisine loosed from its historical moorings: first, because it's served in such a casual setting; second, because it incorporates haute cuisine (or the non-Western equivalents) techniques but not necessarily luxury ingredients or formal platings.

I don't believe there were restaurants like this back in the day. I'd be interested to hear of some examples. But they seem like a distinctly contemporary phenomenon.

[oakapple]

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.

←

If La Grenouille is packed, it's because there used to be twenty or thirty restaurants just like it and now there are two or three (La Grenouille, Le Perigord, and . . . ?). So all the demand for that kind of experience is now concentrated in less than 10% of the seats.

I interpreted Miller a bit differently; I may be wrong.

If Miller was referring specifically to classic haute French, then FG is absolutely correct: 80-90% of the seats have disappeared, which allows the few remaining exemplars of the genre to remain afloat. But I thought Miller was referring in a general way to "expensive, opulent institutions" of all stripes.

Obviously, it would be unrealistic to expect the fine dining industry to remain fixed in amber over a thirty-year period. Taken in a more general sense, restaurants like Le Bernardin, Daniel, Jean Georges, Per Se, Bouley, Chanterelle, Country, The Modern, Gordon Ramsay, and Le Cirque are the culinary heirs of La Grenouille. They are all fancy, luxurious, successful, and in more-or-less the price range of La Grenouille. If you include luxe-Italian and luxe-Japanese, you come up with an even longer list. These restaurants have taken over the clientele that, in days past, would have dined at Lutece, Le Cote Basque, La Caravelle, etc.

So I find it a little difficult to believe that the dining public has tired of such restaurants. If anything, I suspect that the pace of new luxury restaurant openings — along with all other types of restaurant openings — is greater than it was 30 years ago.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, society in general has become far less formal over the past 30 years, and the fine dining industry is no exception. For instance, there are fewer than 10 remaining NYC restaurants with a jacket-and-tie policy (and most of them don't strictly enforce it anyway), whereas it used to be quite common. This is a decades-long trend, so it's rather amusing that Bruni has only just noticed it.

I don't believe there were restaurants like this back in the day. I'd be interested to hear of some examples. But they seem like a distinctly contemporary phenomenon.

←

I can't give a precise analog. Then again, I don't have a precise analog for Masa, either.

If you generalize a bit, you can look at Laurent Tourondel, who went from Cello to BLT Fish; or Gray Kunz, who went from Lespinasse to Café Gray. Neither BLT Fish nor Café Gray are as down-market as Bouley Upstairs or Momofuku Ssam Bar. But in both cases, chefs that formerly operated high-end luxury kitchens have chosen more casual outlets as their new flagships.

Jean-Georges Vongerichten has done it twice, going from Lafayette to the original JoJo (which was more casual than the restaurant in that space today). And now, he has Perry St. — again, not slumming it quite as much as Bouley Upstairs, but still far less formal than that type of restaurant would have been in years past.

Edited February 25, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[robyn]

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)...

Not so long ago = what? Twenty or thirty years? Robyn

[robyn]

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.

←

If La Grenouille is packed, it's because there used to be twenty or thirty restaurants just like it and now there are two or three (La Grenouille, Le Perigord, and . . . ?). So all the demand for that kind of experience is now concentrated in less than 10% of the seats.

I'm not sure how Miller's quote is relevant. Restaurants like Upstairs and Momofuku are not "turning away from haute cuisine and embracing little pizzas, pasta, coq au vin and grilled chicken." What they serve is best thought of as haute cuisine loosed from its historical moorings: first, because it's served in such a casual setting; second, because it incorporates haute cuisine (or the non-Western equivalents) techniques but not necessarily luxury ingredients or formal platings.

I don't believe there were restaurants like this back in the day. I'd be interested to hear of some examples. But they seem like a distinctly contemporary phenomenon.

←

I think there are newer places that fit the bill for the upper east side crowd (and similar crowds who live in other parts of the city). Don't know what's around today - but DB&D did when I was there in 2004. Let's face it - people who earn millions of dollars a year (whether they're 30 or 50 or 70) - and there are a lot of them in New York - aren't going to wait in line for an hour for anything.

As for the "haute cuisine loosed from its historical moorings" served in casual settings - New York was more than a little late to the party. Places like Chinois on Main in Santa Monica (which has been open for almost 25 years) were doing things like that decades ago (and Puck was well beyond little pizzas at that point). So were Norman Van Aken and Mark Militello in south Florida (they both started in the 80's).

Makes sense. California and south Florida have always been casual places. No one gets dressed for dinner. New York wasn't casual (and still isn't to a large extent). Like London and Tokyo - it's one of the few places my husband will pack a suit and tie for - just in case. California and south Florida have people with money who like to dine - and it's silly to think that every great creative chef in the world started in or wound up in New York. Heck - everyone made a big fuss about Doug Rodriguez when he arrived in New York - but he did his earliest and maybe his best work in Coral Gables.

And these are just 2 areas I'm pretty familiar with. I'm sure people who've traveled to or lived in other places over the years have similar stories (I was only in Hawaii once - but I remember similar places there over a decade ago).

Let's face it - in a lot of ways - New York has been an importer of food trends for quite a while - not an exporter. Things like Asian Fusion - Caribbean Fusion - Floribbean - even high end Japanese - whatever - didn't start in New York. Although they wound up there eventually. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

Let's face it - people who earn millions of dollars a year (whether they're 30 or 50 or 70) - and there are a lot of them in New York -  aren't going to wait in line for an hour for anything.

←

I disagree with pretty much 100% of your post, but perhaps most with this statement. Perhaps you don't deal with any young, wealthy New Yorkers, but I do all the time, and I can assure you that your personal preferences, no matter how strongly held, don't neatly project on to them as a group. Sure, some wealthy people are too impatient to wait for a table -- some poor people are too impatient too. But plenty of millionaires are are just fine with it. We're not talking about standing on line with a black hood and handcuffs on. If you go to Upstairs you can wait in the market or downstairs. You can have a cocktail while you wait. You can talk to the people you came with, or you can flirt with other waiting customers. You can conduct business on your Treo. You can send one person ahead to get on the waiting list and the rest of the group can show up later on. At a lot of places where they make you wait for tables, they'll even take your cell number and call you, so you can go to a nearby bar and hang out. Not to mention, most places have informal ways for regulars to make fake reservations, in other words they'll put you at the front of the line. And even if you wait 30-45 minutes for a table at one of these places you're still in and out in less time than at a fine-dining restaurant. I assure you, there are plenty of millionaires dining at Upstairs. I know one who ate there two days ago -- and she's in her fifties. Plus, plenty of people wait half an hour for tables at fine-dining restaurants where they have reservations -- it happens all the time. People wait.

[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.

This is so completely, ridiculously wrong that I want to laugh out loud. Remember, at one time Peter Luger, with its beer-hall esthetic and gruff service, was a four-star restaurant. That was about 40 years ago. One can give countless examples in the intervening years when non-French, non-Continental restaurants received two stars or more. Those who say that Momofuku Ssam Bar signals a new paradigm are really exaggerating.

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.

Again, totally wrong. Claiborne, Sheraton, Reichl --- they were all willing to give two and three stars, and occasionally even four stars, to restaurants that break the classic mold. Frank Bruni is no trend-setter.

...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.

←

Here again, a failure to do basic research. To give but one example: between Sheraton, Miller and Reichl, La Grenouille yo-yo'd anywhere from one to four stars. It's not as if Bruni is the first critic to give low ratings to under-performing high-end restaurants.

One, and only one thing, is significantly different about Frank Bruni's application of the star system, and Joe Gerard nailed it:

The food is often great, the comfort level not very good. My point was simply that it wasn't enough for Bruni to state this. He had to make his positive review a polemic against a different type of restaurant he clearly has no use for.

←

←

1. I said it was my "perception"...not having been around then....my perception appears to have been wrong.

2. Since those reviews aren't available online -- there is no "basic research" that I could do.

3. If the reviews and stars were really that all-over the place...what does that say about the quality of Times critics during the "golden age"? I certainly question them now.

4. What makes Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining? Specific details please. I didn't read it that way at all.

[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.

←

The food is often great, the comfort level not very good. My point was simply that it wasn't enough for Bruni to state this. He had to make his positive review a polemic against a different type of restaurant he clearly has no use for. He anointed fans of Ssam Bar as torch bearers for a new type of dining. Perhaps they are simply people who really love the food but wish the place was a little more comfortable. Sort of like the way I feel about Prune.

←

Considering that Ssam Bar is filled with my demographic...I don't know what you're talking about. It's comfortable enough. If I was paying more, then I would care. You really don't get it.

So if this was really your simple point, why did you feel it necessary to denigrate those of us who like the place with several insults on our knowledge and acumen?

[Nathan]

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.

←

Guess you can't believe everything you read in the papers these days. I gave up on the NYT in a lot of areas a long time ago - but if even the food reporting isn't credible - maybe I'll just save 400 bucks a year and use it to buy a swell pair of shoes. Robyn

←

Actually, as I noted above, this was Bruni's most accurate review, ever.

I didn't see where he implied that this was only a 1-hour meal place.

[Nathan]

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.

←

If La Grenouille is packed, it's because there used to be twenty or thirty restaurants just like it and now there are two or three (La Grenouille, Le Perigord, and . . . ?). So all the demand for that kind of experience is now concentrated in less than 10% of the seats.

I'm not sure how Miller's quote is relevant. Restaurants like Upstairs and Momofuku are not "turning away from haute cuisine and embracing little pizzas, pasta, coq au vin and grilled chicken." What they serve is best thought of as haute cuisine loosed from its historical moorings: first, because it's served in such a casual setting; second, because it incorporates haute cuisine (or the non-Western equivalents) techniques but not necessarily luxury ingredients or formal platings.

I don't believe there were restaurants like this back in the day. I'd be interested to hear of some examples. But they seem like a distinctly contemporary phenomenon.

←

yup

[Nathan]

I think there are newer places that fit the bill for the upper east side crowd (and similar crowds who live in other parts of the city).  Don't know what's around today - but DB&D did when I was there in 2004.  Let's face it - people who earn millions of dollars a year (whether they're 30 or 50 or 70) - and there are a lot of them in New York -  aren't going to wait in line for an hour for anything.

As for the "haute cuisine loosed from its historical moorings" served in casual settings - New York was more than a little late to the party.  Places like Chinois on Main in Santa Monica (which has been open for almost 25 years) were doing things like that decades ago (and Puck was well beyond little pizzas at that point).  So were Norman Van Aken and Mark Militello in south Florida (they both started in the 80's).

←

eh...most of the 30-year-olds making millions of dollars a year (and I know a few of them) aren't part of the "upper east side crowd"....some of them are even foodies. And, yes, they'll wait an hour. In fact...they'll dine at the bar. Some of them will even take the subway to Queens and back for Thai. (or subway all over Manhattan....if you're really trying to save time you'll beat a cab most of the time).

edit: heck, I saw Ethan Hawke waiting in line at Corner Bistro for a seat at the bar just like anyone else the other day...I'd hazard a guess that he makes "millions a year"...(that celebs can get tables anytime at many fine-dining establishments isn't disputable of course)...

I used to live in South Florida. I'm quite familiar with Mark Militello...this is the first time I've ever heard his cooking referred to as "haute cuisine" in any form. It's refined comfort food. Massive menus, large portions...fusiony touches...pizzas, pastas. kind of like an upscale cheesecake factory.

(his menus are easily available online if someone doesn't believe me)

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

With all due respect, I'm going to have to question the reading comprehension of several posters above.

I just re-read Bruni's review. There were three paragraphs that did not concern individual dishes at Ssam Bar. The first noted that Bruni was jumping on the Ssam Bar bandwagon.

The second stated: "By bringing sophisticated, inventive cooking and a few high-end grace notes to a setting that discourages even the slightest sense of ceremony, Ssam Bar answers the desires of a generation of savvy, adventurous diners with little appetite for starchy rituals and stratospheric prices. They want great food, but they want it to feel more accessible, less effete. They’ll gladly take some style along with it, but not if the tax is too punishing."

hmm..Bruni says that there's a generation of diners that like food and are "savvy" but don't like formality and high prices. They like style but not if they have too pay too much for it. Funny, Bruni says nothing about whether he is in that camp. (indeed, age-wise, he's not.) This, btw, is a very accurate description of myself and many of my compatriots.

The last paragraph states: "But he does want you to expect and enjoy artistry and professionalism without the formality that often accompanies them. That’s a noble enough goal, accomplished with enough finesse at Momofuku Ssam Bar, to keep the bandwagon clattering along for some time to come."

Does anyone object to the idea that "artistry and professionalism without...formality" is a "noble...goal"? Anyone? It's not an exclusive statement. He doesn't say that "artistry and professional with formality is an ignoble goal."

wtf? How is any of this a "polemic" against formal dining?

I dare you to justify that reading.

[oakapple]

1.  I said it was my "perception"...not having been around then....my perception appears to have been wrong.

2.  Since those reviews aren't available online -- there is no "basic research" that I could do.

When you don't have the information, it is sometimes better not to speculate.

3.  If the reviews and stars were really that all-over the place...what does that say about the quality of Times critics during the "golden age"?  I certainly question them now.

In the first place, I agree with Sneakeater that there probably was no "golden age," although there is evidence we may now be in a "dark age."

That said, the fact that ratings "yo-yo'd" around may simply mean that the critics were doing their job. As Leonard Kim has repeatedly pointed out, Sheraton and Miller re-reviewed far more often than their successors, so they were in a better position to track year-to-year changes in performance.

Obviously, criticism is subjective. There isn't a huge difference between the top end of three stars and the bottom end of four stars. Frank Bruni's demotion of Bouley, for instance, could mean that the restaurant has sagged since Grimes awarded four. Or it could mean that Bruni's tastes are different. Anyone asking for mathematical precision is bound to be disappointed.

4.  What makes Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining?  Specific details please.  I didn't read it that way at all.

←

Bruni is clearly contrasting Momofuku Ssam Bar to another style of restaurant. But in describing that style, he uses the words "starchy" and "effete." Those words are not used as compliments, and they are not dispassionate descriptors. Would you describe something you liked as "effete"?

He could quite reasonably have drawn a neutral comparison — describing the difference, without suggesting that the other is undesirable. But that's not his angle. He describes Momofuku Ssam Bar as "unfussy"; in other reviews, he has more than once described traditional luxury dining as "fussy" — again, clearly not a favorable term.

No one ever describes a desirable experience as starchy, effete, or fussy. The implication is pretty clear: to Bruni, that type of dining is not appealing. It is even clearer, when you bear in mind that he has said similar things on multiple occasions, so this isn't just a momentary slip-up.

There are other signals — "savvy, adventurous diners" refers to people who dine at places like Momofuku Ssam Bar, rather than other places. Those who pay "stratospheric prices" are, in his opinion, less savvy, less adventurous. "Stratospheric," like the rest of his text, is decidedly not neutral.

Does this new "generation" even exist? Nathan, its most passionate spokesman here, clearly has much broader dining interests, as is apparent from the wide range of restaurants he comments on. Momofuku Ssam Bar is one example of a restaurant some people want, some of the time. It isn't the only thing they want.

Edited February 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Megan Blocker]

eh...most of the 30-year-olds making millions of dollars a year (and I know a few of them) aren't part of the "upper east side crowd"....some of them are even foodies.  And, yes, they'll wait an hour.  In fact...they'll dine at the bar.  Some of them will even take the subway to Queens and back for Thai.  (or subway all over Manhattan....if you're really trying to save time you'll beat a cab most of the time).

←

I do have to agree with this...I have many friends around my age (which is 27) of whose incomes I am very jealous, and they are just as adventurous food-wise as I am, and will wait at the bar for a table in the same places. As oakapple says above, they are interested in a variety of dining experiences, not just high-end, not just low-end, and not just in-between.

That said, Bruni's language in this review just echoes/emphasizes things we've all suspected or inferred up to this point. He prefers a more casual approach to fine dining. I don't take particular issue with that, but I can't help but think that such a seemingly strong bias (a slight bias in either direction seems natural to me, given that I appreciate people with an opinion) would be a liability, given his job.

[Nathan]

1.  I said it was my "perception"...not having been around then....my perception appears to have been wrong.

2.  Since those reviews aren't available online -- there is no "basic research" that I could do.

When you don't have the information, it is sometimes better not to speculate.

3.  If the reviews and stars were really that all-over the place...what does that say about the quality of Times critics during the "golden age"?  I certainly question them now.

In the first place, I agree with Sneakeater that there probably was no "golden age," although there is evidence we may now be in a "dark age."

That said, the fact that ratings "yo-yo'd" around may simply mean that the critics were doing their job. As Leonard Kim has repeatedly pointed out, Sheraton and Miller re-reviewed far more often than their successors, so they were in a better position to track year-to-year changes in performance.

Obviously, criticism is subjective. There isn't a huge difference between the top end of three stars and the bottom end of four stars. Frank Bruni's demotion of Bouley, for instance, could mean that the restaurant has sagged since Grimes awarded four. Or it could mean that Bruni's tastes are different. Anyone asking for mathematical precision is bound to be disappointed.

4.  What makes Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining?  Specific details please.  I didn't read it that way at all.

←

Bruni is clearly contrasting Momofuku Ssam Bar to another style of restaurant. But in describing that style, he uses the words "starchy" and "effete." Those words are not used as compliments, and they are not dispassionate descriptors. Would you describe something you liked as "effete"?

He could quite reasonably have drawn a neutral comparison — describing the difference, without suggesting that the other is undesirable. But that's not his angle. He describes Momofuku Ssam Bar as "unfussy"; in other reviews, he has more than once described traditional luxury dining as "fussy" — again, clearly not a favorable term.

No one ever describes a desirable experience as starchy, effete, or fussy. The implication is pretty clear: to Bruni, that type of dining is not appealing. It is even clearer, when you bear in mind that he has said similar things on multiple occasions, so this isn't just a momentary slip-up.

There are other signals — "savvy, adventurous diners" refers to people who dine at places like Momofuku Ssam Bar, rather than other places. Those who pay "stratospheric prices" are, in his opinion, less savvy, less adventurous. "Stratospheric," like the rest of his text, is decidedly not neutral.

Does this new "generation" even exist? Nathan, its most passionate spokesman here, clearly has much broader dining interests, as is apparent from the wide range of restaurants he comments on. Momofuku Ssam Bar is one example of a restaurant some people want, some of the time. It isn't the only thing they want.

←

oh come off it. does anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a "fussy" or "starchy" or stratospherically-priced restaurant?

obviously such places exist. how does that make this review a "polemic" (your word...you echoed Gerard's first use of it) against formal dining.

I could name several people here that I know personally (which is why I will not name them) who are most certainly part of this "generation."

[Sneakeater]

They're just tryin' to be friendly

So come and watch them sing and play

Cuz they're the young generation

And they've got something to say.

[Sneakeater]

(Well that proves I'M not part of that generation.)

(Hope I get old before I die.)

Edited February 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

oh come off it.  does anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a "fussy" or "starchy" or stratospherically-priced restaurant?

←

All I am saying is that those aren't words you'd normally use to describe something you liked. And Bruni fairly consistently uses similar terminology when he reviews or talks about high-end dining establishments.

For instance, someone who loves Daniel would probably say that it is fairly priced, not that it is stratospherically priced. In a December 2004 Diner's Journal piece about Cafe Boulud, Bruni had this to say:

I dropped by Cafe Boulud the other night. I went because I had recently visited the chef Daniel Boulud's other two Manhattan restaurants but not this one, which happens to be many of my acquaintances' hands-down favorite of the three. I can see why. It doesn't have the starched self-consciousness of Daniel or the cheeky swagger of DB Bistro Moderne.

There's that word "starch" again, clearly indicating he prefers the less formal version of Boulud's cuisine. No one who genuinely liked Daniel would say it was either "starched" or "self-conscious." You don't say that about things you truly enjoy. Edited February 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

oh come off it.  does anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a "fussy" or "starchy" or stratospherically-priced restaurant?

←

All I am saying is that those aren't words you'd normally use to describe something you liked. And Bruni fairly consistently uses similar terminology when he reviews or talks about high-end dining establishments.

For instance, someone who loves Daniel would probably say that it is fairly priced, not that it is stratospherically priced. In a December 2004 Diner's Journal piece about Cafe Boulud, Bruni had this to say:

I dropped by Cafe Boulud the other night. I went because I had recently visited the chef Daniel Boulud's other two Manhattan restaurants but not this one, which happens to be many of my acquaintances' hands-down favorite of the three. I can see why. It doesn't have the starched self-consciousness of Daniel or the cheeky swagger of DB Bistro Moderne.

There's that word "starch" again, clearly indicating he prefers the less formal version of Boulud's cuisine. No one who genuinely liked Daniel wouldn't say it was either "starched" or "self-conscious." You don't say that about things you truly enjoy.

←

all true.

so how does this make Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining?

edit: of course, Bruni has never referred to Daniel as "stratospherically priced"...so there's a strawman component to your post. indeed, he might very well refer to it as "fairly-priced" if asked.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)