Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Sneakeater]

Or, at least, he should have sought to educate himself and establish the term's usage and relevance before ridiculing it.

←

Just wanted to highlight this rather key point FG made.

[Sneakeater]

Just to say it clearly (although Fat Guy alread did):

The point isn't just playing "gotcha" becuase Bruni apparently didn't know what this term meant.

The point is that, even acting as a reporter rather than a critic, Bruni should have researched the term's currency and usage before ridiculing Varietal for employing it.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

It's tantamount to writing:

Learn its elevated argot. What the menu promotes aren't just scallops. They're "diver scallops," which conveys the odd impression of scallops in SCUBA gear on a Club Med vacation. The phrase in fact refers to scallops hand-harvested by human divers, and if you read the notes at the bottom of the menu, you'll learn that.

It might have been cute to write that. In 1994.

[docsconz]

While perhaps not a widely known term to the general public, I believe a good case has been made that the term "Grower Champagne" is one that is known and appreciated by those who have more than a passing interest in wine. Given that Varietal has placed itself as a place to go to to enjoy fine wines, why would they not label those particular champagenes as "grower" and why would they not try to educate those customers who might not yet be familiar with the term and the characteristics of the wines that make them qualify for the term? Why should that be subject to ridicule? I think information is a good thing, including the provenance of my food. i think giving credit to small farmers is laudable and not worthy of derision. Whether or not the kitchen does something laudable with those ingredients is another question entirely. Bruni seems to be arguing for ignorance.

[Nathan]

personally, I think the habit of informing us the purported name of the cow that furnished the butter...or the exact farms behind each ingredient is rather precious and annoying....and way too many restaurants are engaging in it. but that's also light years away from using a common term in oenophiliac parlance.

[rich]

Gee, until yesterday I though GC meant grapes that had bubbles inside the skins.

[slkinsey]

5 - Bruni either knew what "grower Champagne" meant or didn't. (Here we're talking about before he read about it at Varietal; needless to say, he now knows what it means.)

a. If he was already familiar with "grower Champagne," why did he imply that he learned about it at the restaurant?

b. If he didn't know about "grower Champagne," he should have. Or, at least, he should have sought to educate himself and establish the term's usage and relevance before ridiculing it.

c. Again, what he wrote was:

Learn its elevated argot. What servers promote at the start of dinner isn’t just Champagne. It’s “grower Champagne,” identified that way on a special matte card, which conveys the odd impression that sparkling wine is a crop, like soybeans. The phrase in fact refers to small producers making wines from their own grapes, and if you read the text accompanying the selection of a half dozen glasses, you’ll learn that.

d. I suppose it's possible the he was just really sloppy about conveying his reality, however given that his intent was clearly to demean Varietal he should have taken at least some care to be clear and correct.

I thought he wrote it to convey the impression that he thought this was a fussy and pretentious practice. This is right in line with his smirking description of Varietal's listing of various producers and growers on their menu (something that has been going on for so long that even likeminded middlebrow restaurants like Franny's do it, and including some mention of the purview of certain ingredients is almost standard in higher cuisine these days).

[docsconz]

personally, I think the habit of informing us the purported name of the cow that furnished the butter...or the exact farms behind each ingredient is rather precious and annoying....and way too many restaurants are engaging in it.  but that's also light years away from using a common term in oenophiliac parlance.

←

I think that whether or not the practice is pretentious is a question of the degree to which it is done. To take your example of naming the cow from which the butter is made is a little precious and depending on how even that is done (i.e. tongue-in-cheek or dead serious) could very well be pretentious. However, I think the practice of crediting the farms and farmers who work so hard to provide top quality produce is a good one that serves to encourage other farmers to do the what it takes. When I visited Varietal, I did not have the impression that this was done in a pretentious manner at all. That is not necessarily true of all other restaurants that engage in the practice. Other than denigrating the practice in general, Bruni did not provide any specifics besides the now much discussed "Grower" champagne as to how this may have been pretentious or over the top at Varietal.

[robyn]

...and robyn, raymond sokolov????  i read one of his reviews and thought to myself, "darn, i don't have enough breadcrumbs to find my way home!" the last thing the nyt needs is a tired, old critic, bruni brings life, energy, spirit... i know that his style takes a beating on this thread, but i kind of like it, his writing that is...  when i read a review of a restaurant, i don't want it to read like that of a book review or a consumer report of a new car.  "he didn't mention that enough" or "he never goes into to much detail about ...", but i say he does, he just leaves to the readers imagination to place themselves in his shoes and have the reader fill in the blanks.

←

Perhaps I'm just tired tonight - but I don't understand what you mean about the breadcrumbs.

And I guess where we differ is I am more interested in reading restaurant reviews the way I'd read a consumer report of a car. Because I don't read them for entertainment - I read them to decide where to eat when I travel (with the internet - it's very easy to access all of a newspaper's or food site's restaurant reviews on line). And Bruni gives me very little help in that regard when it comes to New York. To be quite honest about it - his restaurant reviews have put a damper on our trips to New York. He makes all the places I think I'd like to eat at sound terrible (fussy - starchy - overbearing - whatever). Remember - we're tourists when we go to New York. And we like to try at least a couple of new big deal restaurants when we go there. He succeeds in making most of them sound pretty dismal (and makes me feel like I'd be an idiot or worse to spend a lot of money at them).

As for book reviews - I never read them. I like to read the book and be surprised by what's in it. Robyn

[Nathan]

...and robyn, raymond sokolov????  i read one of his reviews and thought to myself, "darn, i don't have enough breadcrumbs to find my way home!" the last thing the nyt needs is a tired, old critic, bruni brings life, energy, spirit... i know that his style takes a beating on this thread, but i kind of like it, his writing that is...  when i read a review of a restaurant, i don't want it to read like that of a book review or a consumer report of a new car.  "he didn't mention that enough" or "he never goes into to much detail about ...", but i say he does, he just leaves to the readers imagination to place themselves in his shoes and have the reader fill in the blanks.

←

Perhaps I'm just tired tonight - but I don't understand what you mean about the breadcrumbs.

And I guess where we differ is I am more interested in reading restaurant reviews the way I'd read a consumer report of a car. Because I don't read them for entertainment - I read them to decide where to eat when I travel (with the internet - it's very easy to access all of a newspaper's or food site's restaurant reviews on line). And Bruni gives me very little help in that regard when it comes to New York. To be quite honest about it - his restaurant reviews have put a damper on our trips to New York. He makes all the places I think I'd like to eat at sound terrible (fussy - starchy - overbearing - whatever). Remember - we're tourists when we go to New York. And we like to try at least a couple of new big deal restaurants when we go there. He succeeds in making most of them sound pretty dismal (and makes me feel like I'd be an idiot or worse to spend a lot of money at them).

As for book reviews - I never read them. I like to read the book and be surprised by what's in it. Robyn

←

most of them are dismal....it's not just Bruni. for new places there's no reason to come here and not begin with Ssam Bar or Robuchon.

[robyn]

personally, I think the habit of informing us the purported name of the cow that furnished the butter...or the exact farms behind each ingredient is rather precious and annoying....and way too many restaurants are engaging in it.  but that's also light years away from using a common term in oenophiliac parlance.

←

I agree with you to a certain extent - especially when the name is one you see again and again and again (which tends to be the case). But - sometimes - it's fun and educational. We went to a great restaurant in Atlanta (maybe not great for Paris but great for Atlanta) last month - and it featured some cheese from a dairy in Thomasville Georgia. Now how often do you see that on a menu ? I never knew there was an artisan dairy in Thomasville (which is near Tallahassee Florida) - and the cheese was pretty good. So when we're in Tallahassee next month - if we have an extra hour or two - we'll go there and buy some.

In thinking about Bruni - I have to conclude that he simply isn't a fun adventurous guy. And that he is somewhat insecure. I was taught to be very open and inquiring when I dine. If I don't know something (and there's an awful lot I don't know) - well you ask - and you learn. And most people in good restaurants are good or great teachers. You don't put something down unless you try it - and it's no good (and you know the difference between good and bad). You don't put it down because you don't understand it - or don't like it (I don't like some of the gelatinous stuff in "real" Chinese cooking - but apparently there are lots of Chinese people who do). I cannot imagine someone like Bruni taking the trip we took to Japan last year without having major panic attacks or becoming totally defensive. In Japan - we didn't know what 3/4 of the higher class food was - or how to eat it when it was served (you get 3 dishes of dipping sauce - do I dip this piece of tempura in the one on the left - the one in the middle - or the one on the right). Who knows? - and there is a single correct answer. We asked the chefs and servers to instruct us - and they were glad to oblige. They didn't laugh when we totally screwed up (ok - a couple laughed - but not at us - with us).

Or champagne. What is the big deal about any champagne? I love champagne - but we went to lots of places in London our last trip - and places like ADNY - where I had never heard of any of the stuff they were serving. You just say you've never heard of any of them - try to explain your preferences - and let your server guide you. Especially if he's one of those guys pouring a glass from a magnum while he rests it on his arm. The show is impressive - and even middle of the road champagne is always festive.

Maybe Bruni is just too up tight to have a good time. Which is what fine dining is all about. Robyn

[robyn]

...most of them are dismal....it's not just Bruni.  for new places there's no reason to come here and not begin with Ssam Bar or Robuchon.

←

That's kind of sad if true.

I'm not sure I will ever go to one of the new Robuchon places - basically for "you can't go home again" reasons (Jamin was one of the best meals of my life). You are too young to have gone to Jamin - so you don't have the same baggage.

But surely New York isn't that bad. Or is it? Robyn

[oakapple]

You can count me among those who didn't know the term "Grower Champagne" before Varietal. However, I am not a paid professional, and hold myself to a lower standard. There is no doubt in my mind that Bruni was previously unfamiliar with the term.

I entirely expected him to have this reaction. Bruni clearly doesn't know much about wines, and he reacts negatively to restaurant marketing practices that he finds prissy, highfalutin, or artificial. I myself was mildly offended by the grower champagne list at Varietal, and it takes much more to offend me than Bruni.

Bruni isn't fond of food that you have to "think about." No surprise, then, that he didn't care for the desserts.

As for Jordan Kahn's resignation, I suspect it has been in the works for a few weeks. The dining room hasn't been full, and most critics haven't been wowed. They had to have known that the Bruni review was the last chance to generate some positive buzz. But Kahn had to have been thinking about his other options.

[smgarsh]

You can count me among those who didn't know the term "Grower Champagne" before Varietal. However, I am not a paid professional, and hold myself to a lower standard. There is no doubt in my mind that Bruni was previously unfamiliar with the term.

←

I too haven't heard about the term "Grower Champagne" until the Varietal review.

For a lot of ppl like me, I don't need to know that much detail of what I'm drinking.

This is the same type of criticism the craftsteak menu got when they first opened. Remember when the biography of each "cow" was on the menu.

[larrylee]

For a lot of ppl like me, I don't need to know that much detail of what I'm drinking.

This is the same type of criticism the craftsteak menu got when they first opened. Remember when the biography of each "cow" was on the menu.

←

By way of contrast, I tend to enjoy my food more when I know more about it.

[robyn]

You can count me among those who didn't know the term "Grower Champagne" before Varietal. However, I am not a paid professional, and hold myself to a lower standard. There is no doubt in my mind that Bruni was previously unfamiliar with the term.

←

I too haven't heard about the term "Grower Champagne" until the Varietal review.

For a lot of ppl like me, I don't need to know that much detail of what I'm drinking.

This is the same type of criticism the craftsteak menu got when they first opened. Remember when the biography of each "cow" was on the menu.

←

One difference between food and drink is there are probably tens of thousands of different wines. Maybe some very learned people know about thousands of bottles - but the average diner frequently doesn't recognize much of anything on a wine list (unless it's really high end - or really low end). The same with spirits. I like gin. And at a really good high class bar - well it might have 20+ gins. Of which I am perhaps really familiar with 5. On the other hand - when it comes to food - you're dealing with a finite number of ingredients - and chefs who prepare them in a limited number of particular ways (I doubt you'll ever find a restaurant where you can have a chicken prepared in one of 20 - much less 500 - ways).

The reason wine becomes important is it can easily double or triple the cost of a meal even at very high priced restaurants. So it tends to be an intimidating factor for a lot of diners. I am glad that the only wine I drink is champagne - because it's easier to figure out what's what when you're dealing only with a limited part of the wine menu (or wine book in many cases). Robyn

[Fat Guy]

The discussion of how much information restaurants should provide about the food and wine they serve would make a good topic, or maybe I'm forgetting topics that have already covered it. I'm definitely in the larrylee camp: no amount of information is too much for me. I should say, I've never yet been passively offered (passively as in printed on the menu, etc.) more information than I wanted. I have had information actively pushed (actively as in the server gives a speech and expects you to listen) on me to a greater extent than I would have liked. But that's different. I can't see why anybody would mind having stuff explained on a piece of paper.

I also don't think there's any shame in not knowing what grower Champagne is. Even if you're a well-placed full-time food writer, there's going to be nomenclature that for one reason or another you missed. That has nothing to do with the point here, though. The more important question is what do you do when you run into nomenclature that's new to you, or that you think will be new to many members of your audience? Do you just ridicule it? That's kind of lame -- it's a pretty low-level move. Especially if you're the critic for the New York Times, you should at least Google it and run it through Dow Jones or some other news search. If you do that, for starters you'll see the thousands of uses of the phrase "grower Champagne" stretching back a decade. Then you can decide whether you should be ridiculing Varietal for using well-established terminology.

[Nathan]

...most of them are dismal....it's not just Bruni.  for new places there's no reason to come here and not begin with Ssam Bar or Robuchon.

←

That's kind of sad if true.

I'm not sure I will ever go to one of the new Robuchon places - basically for "you can't go home again" reasons (Jamin was one of the best meals of my life). You are too young to have gone to Jamin - so you don't have the same baggage.

But surely New York isn't that bad. Or is it? Robyn

←

the dining scene here is great! It's just that there really haven't been any exciting high end openings in a while. Ssam Bar, Perry Street, Bouley Upstairs and Atelier (as well as apparently Humm at EMP) have been easily the most interesting new restaurants to open in the last couple years.

when you're in Tallahassee check out Kool Beans Cafe...nothing special but it's probably easily the best restaurant in the area....accepting Grapes & Grain (or somesuch) if it's still open....

as for Bruni, I don't think his problem is being uptight at all. read the Sriphithai, Spicy & Tasty, Ssam Bar and Robert's reviews....the guy doesn't have that problem at all. He just doesn't like what he considers stuffiness or pretension (I disagree with him half the time on that....but I don't think that being uptight is his vice....if anything, it's the opposite.)

[Nathan]

unlike Per Se's habit of telling you the specific names of the cows that give you butter....or the fact that every restaurant in the city seems to get stuff from Coach Farms....or the fact that Nieman Ranch isn't a ranch or a single source...but rather a purveyor....

"grower champagne" is a legitimate technical category....like rioja (not just any wine from the region qualifies) or cremant or sauternes or pinotage...etc.

[rich]

unlike Per Se's habit of telling you the specific names of the cows that give you butter....

←

When I ate there, the cow names listed on the menu were Brenda, Chewie, Whitney, Yvonne and Scarlet and they were all very good. However, I was very disappointed they didn't have any of Elsie's butter available that night.

[JohnL]

Here's my take:

Bruni is using the GC thing with the ingredient listings and the ingredient sourcing (the thanking the following suppliers) to support the statement: "Varietal isn't just a restaurant. It's an epicurean advanced placement exam with a dollop of Oscar acceptance speech."

This is his way of making the point that Varietal has serious pretensions and pretty much proclaims these pretensions. This is his reporter's "hook"--it is what he builds his review upon. It is his chance to be "witty" and entertaining.

Again, I have argued that for the most part, Bruni tends to overdo this at the expense of offering more and more useful information and solid criticism. too often he tries to use things like decor to set a tone and to act as a sort of metaphor for what he believes a restaurant's pretensions are.

Here's my theory:

Bruni approaches restaurant and food criticism as a reporter. Most restaurant critics are experienced diners and are passionate and knowledgeable about food and restaurants. They provide their perspective and quality assessments based on their knowledge and experience.

Bruni, on the other hand, seems to see himself as more of a consumer reporter/advocate an "investigative" reporter of restaurants and the food scene.

He is a guy who obviously likes to dine out and enjoys food but who is not an advocate for great food and restaurant experiences. He is an advocate for the consumer--everyman (and woman).

Where most other critics would elaborate on a wine list providing more information and insight, Bruni simply wants to convey that " hey this place is serious about wine

and food and if you are a real serious gourmand, you could have a good time here...but others may find this stuff a bit over the top...""

A news reporter's or a consumer reporter's approach not a serious gourmand writing restaurant criticism!

This approach is not the traditional approach it is found more on blogs and websites where "amateurs" who think they know a bit about food and wine and eating out, like to voice their opinions. You know they are just folks--just like many of us.

It is a continuation of the Zagat philosophy that who better to trust for a restaurant recommendation than plain folks. Not some high fallutin foodie/wine geek!

real reviews from real people!

I believe this is what drives many of us nuts over Bruni and his reviews. It is what the Times (and many other papers) are doing to fight the fact that people are going elsewhere for the things newspapers provide. They suspect (correctly) that their restaurant reviews are no longer as important as they once were. So they have adopted the can't beat em join em philosophy and wrongheadedly adapted the worst aspects of the internet etc.

anyway, that's my opinion and I am stickin to it!!!

(insert a mental picture of winking smiley face here)

[Sneakeater]

FWIW, actually, I agree with you on all that.

[mikeyrad]

A few restaurant owners have told me that Bruni doesn't know squat about wines. (I'd add that he is equally as boneheaded about food.) Supposedly, someone in his inner circle does have some expertise.

BTW, you can identify grower Champagnes by the RM designation somewhere on the bottle (in many cases the lower right-hand corner). They're usually of the similar or higher quality as the premium brands (Cristal or DP) at a fraction of the price.

[mikeyrad]

JohnL, I also agree. It's a shame that the Times is digressing to a lowest common denominator approach.

[JohnL]

A few restaurant owners have told me that Bruni doesn't know squat about wines. (I'd add that he is equally as boneheaded about food.)  Supposedly, someone in his inner circle does have some expertise.

BTW, you can identify grower Champagnes by the RM designation somewhere on the bottle (in many cases the lower right-hand corner).  They're usually of the similar or higher quality as the premium brands (Cristal or DP) at a fraction of the price.

←

Good tip about the RM designation.

I disagree a bit that they are "usually of the similar or higher quality as the premium brands..."

I would say they are, generally better quality and value than many of the Non Vintage Champagnes from the large establishments. I would also say that some do compete nicely with the top or prestige couvees from the large houses.

Most grower Champagnes are not cheap. (they can range from twenty bucks up to a hundred or more).

I would recommend that anyone interested-- try a bottle of Grower Champagne and see if they like it better than other champagnes they are familiar with. Many are suprisingly good!