Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Fat Guy]

I found the first smacks at GT somewhat inappropriate.  However, Bruni clearly needed a theme to link this review together so why not call up the other USHG big guns.  While Danny Meyer isn't in all the restaurants all the time, USHG still serves to link them together.  The fact that they serve very different cuisines and have very different energies is irrelevant to the review as Bruni sees it, and I kind of agree with him.  Bruni's remarks at the end, suggesting that the new upstarts have overthrown the storied powerhouses, was applicable, and I think illuminating to the larger dining public who still consider GT and USC among the best restaurants in the city. 

←

That he comments on other USHG restaurants is not problematic. It's that his comments are lame.

USHG is probably the most important restaurant group in New York City, and therefore North America. So when you go to write about USHG, you need to have your act together.

That doesn't mean you cut USHG any slack. Quite the contrary. However, you should make the following choice:

You could choose to ignore the common management issue, and just say you're going to treat each restaurant as a distinct entity like any other restaurant. There would certainly be nothing wrong with taking that position. From the standpoint of a consumer-oriented reviewer, that may be the most rational approach.

Or, you could choose to treat the group as an oeuvre. That's also a respectable approach, more along the lines of what an arts critic should be doing.

But here's the thing: if you're going to start commenting on the oeuvre, you've got to educate yourself. In the case of USHG, that means you eat at all the group's restaurants -- including the subdivisions like Bread Bar, Tavern, Cafe 2 and Terrace 5, and the outliers like Shake Shack and Blue Smoke, and maybe for extra credit you check out the events company Hudson Yards -- and then you sit down and think about what you've learned and try to come up with something meaningful to say.

To me, it seems Bruni never made the choice and committed to a path. He makes the weak claim that he has "covered enough Meyer territory over the last two years to be convinced that they’re the standouts," which to me indicates that he doesn't have the ammunition to make a more knowledgeable, authoritative claim.

With his limitless budget, there's no excuse for not doing that legwork. And the weakness of his approach shows in every one of his reviews of USHG restaurants. He misses the big stories. He doesn't see the important trend of USHG hiring better and better chefs in a new mold, because he slaps Gramercy Tavern instead of pausing to consider what Mike Anthony's arrival really shows: that USHG is migrating from Michael Romano and Tom Colicchio to Gabriel Kreuther, Daniel Humm and Mike Anthony. He doesn't get the right points of comparison, so he misses the real story about how Bread Bar, Tavern and Bar Room are a different breed of restaurant -- that should have been the comparative review. He doesn't get the USHG culture, doesn't seem to have read Danny Meyer's book -- you would think he'd comment on it, given that it came out recently and is a New York Times bestseller and illuminates much about USHG -- doesn't seem even to understand the basics.

[Sneakeater]

Logged on.  You're wrong. 

←

Thank you.

[Nathan]

"USHG is probably the most important restaurant group in New York City, and therefore North America. So when you go to write about USHG, you need to have your act together."

No. Either of the JG or Boulud groups are both more influential and more significant. The Thomas Keller group is by far the most influential and important in North America. The Robuchon North America group is now more influential and important. Probably LettuceEntertainYou as well. BRGuest has a presence everywhere in the country. So does Chodorow. So does Bartolotta I'm sure there are some California restaurant groups that could easily compete.

I love and appreciate what Danny Meyer has done for dining in this city...but today, only one or two of his restaurants are of any significance at all.

As for the rest of your post, it's well-taken. And would be most applicable to a feature article on the Group.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

He misses the big stories. He doesn't see the important trend of USHG hiring better and better chefs in a new mold, because he slaps Gramercy Tavern instead of pausing to consider what Mike Anthony's arrival really shows: that USHG is migrating from Michael Romano and Tom Colicchio to Gabriel Kreuther, Daniel Humm and Mike Anthony. He doesn't get the right points of comparison, so he misses the real story about how Bread Bar, Tavern and Bar Room are a different breed of restaurant -- that should have been the comparative review.

←

And the thing is, you can see those two with your eyes closed.

[Sneakeater]

Thinking about it over lunch, it occurred to me that what's funny is that this review is really a sort of fire-the-chef review for the guy in charge of the main dining room at the Modern. Hope Gabriel Kreuther has another gig lined up somewhere. There's certainly no hope of his taking over the Bar Room: that guy's set.

Also, we now know what a pastry chef has to do to get mentioned in a Times review: leave.

[oakapple]

Nathan, that's a great post. I do fear, though, that parts of it are too cynical.

I'm certain that with every prior reviewer one could find mistakes just as egregious (if we go far enough back those mistakes won't, of course, be obvious)...I can think of a couple Grimes ratings that if given by Bruni would result in massive amounts of consternation and condemnation on this board (of course, Grimes' background wasn't in food either, he was one of the preeminent historians of the American cocktail).

I agree that every reviewer makes mistakes. But that doesn't mean that all critics are basically interchangeable. Although I don't know how to measure it, there probably are some critics who've made more mistakes than others. Grimes's background, if not pitch-perfect, was a more rational segue into restaurant criticism than anything Bruni has in his background.

The difference between Bruni and his predecessors comes down, imo, to two primary factors:

A. (and this is by far the most significant one)...the astronomical growth in amateur criticism and internet writing about restaurants.  No critic will ever garner the deference of the past....Grimes was the end of that era.  If Bruni had been the critic ten, even six, years ago...he wouldn't have been criticized anywhere near as much.

I'm not sure Grimes enjoyed any more deference than Bruni. What has changed, is that we know instantly what the "blogosphere" thinks of the latest review. Maybe people were outraged when Mimi Sheraton awarded four stars to Hatsuhana in 1983 (the first Japanese restaurant so honored). But those outraged people couldn't as easily find each other as they can today.

B.  He got off to a bad start.  There were some notable initial missteps.

I agree that Bruni's last year has been better than his first year.

Another factor is his apparent bias against formal dining.  I'm not quite sure this is true -- he did after all four-star Per Se and Masa, and three-star Atelier, EMP, Country and Picholine.

When I suggest that he's biased against formal dining, I am not suggesting that he's incapable of ever giving fair recognition to those restaurants. I am suggesting that he does not as readily appreciate excellence in that category.

But, insofar as this may be true, I'd avow that this bias only follows that of the dining public.  I'm not sure that a public critic writing for public taste is necessarily a bad thing.

There is also quite a bit more public demand for Britney Spears than Beethoven. Luckily, the Times has separate critics (indeed, separate departments) for pop and classical music. As long as the paper has just one critic for fine dining, that critic needs to appreciate a wide variety of styles and tastes.

And his ratings of Sriphithai, S&T and general willingness to write about the other boroughs shows an attempt to broaden public tastes, not just follow them.

I think he is absolutely right about calling attention to these kinds of places. But he didn't need to give them two stars. The fact is, for places like that, a full-length glowing review is like a Christmas present. Just to be reviewed at all was more than they ever expected.

I'm willing right now to put down cash that the next NY Times critic will be written about on threads analogous to this one in the following fashion:  initial euphoria after the first review (just as Bruni was after his inaugural Babbo review -- if you don't believe me, go back and read the thread...I'm not joking); followed by one of the two following sentiments over the next year: "well, at least he/she is better than Bruni" to which someone will write "that's supposed to be a compliment?"; or, someone will write "________ is even worse than Bruni!"

anyone want to take my bet?  I'll even give you odds.

in other words, every NY Times dining critic will be compared disfavorably to the past.

←

I agree with most of that, but I think you're being too cynical. No critic can be universally adored, and every critic will write reviews that lots of us disagree with. But I don't think it's impossible to put someone in that job who, on the whole, will be widely regarded as better than Frank Bruni.

[vivin]

Fat Guy,

Your comments are well taken. However, all you are saying is that the Times' critic should take the time to know more about the restaurant scene in New York than people who write and read egullet. Why does egullet exist? Forums and blogs like these exist because bigger institutions like NYT continue to lag behind in the speed of information dissemination that is possible now. Nathan's assertion that critics were never questioned before forums like egullet plays to this as well.

[vivin]

"I think he is absolutely right about calling attention to these kinds of places. But he didn't need to give them two stars."

Disagree. One of the differences in NY dining is that places like Sri exist and thrive. Would you rate Kittichai (more formal) higher than Sri?

[Sneakeater]

This is where I'll bet I differ with oakapple.

I'd give them both two stars. Sripraphai because of the fantastic food, but with no ambiance and negligible service.

Kittichai for the inventiveness (and good quality) of the food and quality of the ingredients, together with the terrific ambiance and good service.

[Nathan]

"I'm not sure Grimes enjoyed any more deference than Bruni. What has changed, is that we know instantly what the "blogosphere" thinks of the latest review. Maybe people were outraged when Mimi Sheraton awarded four stars to Hatsuhana in 1983 (the first Japanese restaurant so honored). But those outraged people couldn't as easily find each other as they can today."

You don't think outrage is partially a confluence of like-minded people? That we aren't affected by each other? There are cognitive studies (done with politics but I don't see why it wouldn't be valid here as well) demonstrating that if you put together a group of people all sharing views on the same general spectrum and exclude explicit opposing voices then the group consensus will inevitably end up nearly identical to the most extreme position in the room. In other words, some people might not have been outraged at all if they weren't exposed to similar people who were outraged.

The blogosphere has a remarkable similarity to an echo chamber.

"But I don't think it's impossible to put someone in that job who, on the whole, will be widely regarded as better than Frank Bruni. "

I agree. But part of that will simply be a matter of concrete institutional memory -- these threads.

[oakapple]

Thinking about it over lunch, it occurred to me that what's funny is that this review is really a sort of fire-the-chef review for the guy in charge of the main dining room at the Modern.  Hope Gabriel Kreuther has another gig lined up somewhere.  There's certainly no hope of his taking over the Bar Room:  that guy's set.

←

I don't know if it's a fire-the-chef review, because I don't know how well The Modern is doing. I'm sure Danny Meyer wants three stars, but what he really wants is butts in seats. If he's getting that, then Kreuther is safe.

The only data point I have, is that The Modern was charging around $350 on New Year's Eve, which even at their level is a very substantial premium over the everyday price. It suggests they've accumulated enough satisfied regulars to believe they could fill the room with people willing to spend that kind of money on a special occasion.

And firing the chef isn't a panacea. Alain Ducasse fired Christian Delouvrier, and Bruni does not seem to have paid the slightest bit of attention.

The one near-certainty is that The Modern will never be rated three stars as long as Kreuther is the chef and Bruni is the critic. I just don't know how much that matters.

Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

"I don't know if it's a fire-the-chef review, because I don't know how well The Modern is doing. I'm sure Danny Meyer wants three stars, but what he really wants is butts in seats. If he's getting that, then Kreuther is safe."

I think Sneakeater was joking. Kreuther is also the chef of the Bar Room. Thus, he has three stars from the Times for one part of the venue and two stars for the other part. Thus, DM faces the conundrum that if he fired Kreuther for underperformance in the Modern proper, he also loses the chef behind the three-star portion of the venue.

[oakapple]

"I think he is absolutely right about calling attention to these kinds of places. But he didn't need to give them two stars."

Disagree. One of the differences in NY dining is that places like Sri exist and thrive. Would you rate Kittichai (more formal) higher than Sri?

←

What I said, was that if his aim was to call attention to restaurants normally overlooked by the Manhattan-centric fine dining public, either a glowing one-star review or a glowing two-star review would have had the same effect.

I have dined at Kittichai twice, and I rate it two stars (the same as Frank Bruni did). I have never dined at Sripraphai or Spicy & Tasty, so my comments about them are based on what I've heard.

What Fat Guy and some others said at the time, and I agree with, is that a two-star rating suggests—among many other things—a certain degree of service and creature-comforts, along with very good food. There is a variability in these things: after all, there are thousands of restaurants, but only four ratings. But Sripraphai and S&T are simply too alien from what a two-star rating traditionally has meant.

By the way, it's no insult to be a great one-star restaurant. Not every one-star restaurant is a failed attempt at two, three, or four stars. Yes, that explanation accounts for some of the one-star ratings. But sometimes one star applies quite comfortably to restaurants that are doing a great job at their level.

I also think—though there's no way to prove it—that if you could magically transport Sripraphai and S&T into Manhattan, with the identical service and ambiance as their outer-borough doppelgangers, Bruni would not give them two stars. In 2½ years on the job, he has never given two stars to a place in Manhattan comparable to these two. (It wouldn't necessarily have to be Thai or Chinese.) I think Sri and S&T got a bonus star for being outside of Manhattan.

Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

Isn't Oriental Garden comparable?

My own take on ratings for places like that is that the food is so fantastic that they are entitled to two stars even despite the lack of ambiance and rudimentary service. I have no problem with that, because I think the food is that good.

It's not necessarily an outerborough thing.

I'd give the Hell's Kitchen Grand Sichuan two stars.

And I agreed with Ruth Reichl's two stars for NY Noodletown back in the Nineties.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

If he wants to put down those places, it's certainly his right. But do it in their own review where an explanation is necessary (at least for most critics).

←

Rich, do you categorically object anytime a critic makes an off-hand reference — for purposes of comparison — to something he's not fully reviewing? It happens all the time, e.g.:

John Doe gave a thrilling performance, overcoming the intonation problems that have plagued him in the past.

John Smith has written a compelling legal thriller, which is much improved over his earlier novel, "The Broken Cherry Tree."

In this film, Spielberg focuses on the characters, unlike his earlier films that are flawed by mind-numbing special effects.

And so forth.

←

But there you're comparing the same author's work. In these restaurants, you have completely different staffs, chefs and philosophies.

The only common denominator is the owner (of a certain percentage). I don't see the comparison of these restaurants in that light. Why not compare his burger shack as well? Meyer's places are stand alone restaurants, not chains. Each has its own personality. I see no validity in the pot shots he took.

The only possible exception would be service - since that's a DM trademark.

Edited January 10, 2007 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

To put it another way, I'd rate Kittichai two stars, too. But if Kittichai gets two stars, then Sripraphai does, too. The food is that much better.

[vivin]

I have eaten both at Kittichai and Sri. I would not give Kittichai two stars. Only one. But if Kitti gets two, Sri gets two as well. The food, I agree, is that much better. If Sri can survive in Manhattan with the same prices and quality, it should be rated higher not lower - Bruni or no Bruni. It is interesting how much of a reverse snob you think Bruni is.

[rich]

I'm willing right now to put down cash that the next NY Times critic will be written about on threads analogous to this one in the following fashion:  initial euphoria after the first review (just as Bruni was after his inaugural Babbo review -- if you don't believe me, go back and read the thread...I'm not joking);

←

Nathan as I recall that was a very controversial review based on his first paragraph, where he came as close as possible to saying he didn't award Babbo four stars because he didn't enjoy the music.

I don't think euphoria existed at all. In fact, it was in that review he set the tone for his other problematic proclamations.

[Sneakeater]

If you look at the first Bruni thread, I think you'll be surprised at how favorable much of the early commentary was.

[rich]

And one last point regarding the pettiness of the USC and GT blasts.

If he wanted, he could have been very positive at the end by saying EMP an BRTM are now the top two properties of the USHG fiefdom. To take a negative approach certainly speaks volumns about his character and personality.

[rich]

If you look at the first Bruni thread, I think you'll be surprised at how favorable much of the early commentary was.

←

It was, but not the Babbo review and certainly not after the Bouley review, which appeared shortly after. I think everyone was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after Babbo (honeymoon), but after Bouley his fate was sealed - at least in my mind.

But at least the Bouley review proved he does do well with one-sided character assassination.

[Nathan]

"Nathan as I recall that was a very controversial review based on his first paragraph, where he came as close as possible to saying he didn't award Babbo four stars because he didn't enjoy the music.

I don't think euphoria existed at all. In fact, it was in that review he set the tone for his other problematic proclamations."

I remember you making points on the music. Read everyone else's posts on that thread. They were very positive. I've gone back and looked...human memory is faulty. Look at the thread.

"To take a negative approach certainly speaks volumns about his character and personality."

Eh, here's the problem. USC and GT have three stars and are at the top of the Zagat ratings. They're also not that good. (especially USC). GT might have changed in the past week, but with all due respect to FG, that's the past week. If you really want to emphasize that the best restaurants in the Meyer Empire are EMP and the Modern, you have to compare the others negatively.

With all due respect, there's a certain age demographic that gives an unmerited affection to USC and GT as they are now (whatever they may have deserved in the past). In the past five years I've eaten at USC four or five times and at GT twice. There's a reason why we were the only people under 50 in the room that weren't accompanied by parents.

edit: as to why we kept going back to USC -- cause my ex lived on the block and USC was better than Chat 'n' Chew or Blue Water Grill.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

Rich, read the Babbo thread and the first Bruni thread.

the reaction to the Babbo review was overwhelmingly popular (yours wasn't, but virtually everyone else's was)....some were literally euphoric.

Read the threads.

btw, Babbo was Bruni's first review.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

I agree with you, rich, that by the Bouley review the honeymoon was over.

[Nathan]

oakapple:

its hard to have this discussion when you haven't eaten at Sriphithai or S&T. I haven't eaten at S&T so I won't comment on that.

as Sneakeater noted, Oriental Garden is in Manhattan and for some reason (unknown to me)...that two star rating wasn't controversial. I have a theory as to why though -- its cause you can spend a lot of money at Oriental Garden...and you can't at Sri or S&T (to my knowledge).

with that said, the food at Sriphithai is at a three star level. period. so, yeah, it gets knocked down a star for ambience and comfort. should it get knocked down another star for being a long commute?

I have never been in a restaurant more deserving of the two-star rating. I wouldn't even have objected if it had gotten three.

If Otto can have two stars (and Grimes gave it that without significant controversy) than my goodness Sriphithai can have two.

Yes, a couple people objected...as far as I can tell the arguments were predicated upon pure..............