Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[rich]

"Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with preparing food well that is no longer perceived as cutting-edge."

of course not.  but is it worth two or three stars?  certainly not at those prices.  and some of the dishes at USC simply suck.

←

Oh Nathan, nothing "sucks" at USC. If it did, it would be off the menu in a heartbeat. Some may not suit your taste, but to use that term is a bit over the top.

[Nathan]

as I noted before, I love that tuna dish. the problem is that it's the best thing on the menu.

here is the menu:

http://www.unionsquarecafe.com/docs/dinner.pdf

the baby lamb is served once a week. no, I haven't had it. I have had the lamb chops -- and they weren't very good.

oakapple: yeah, the Indian Spiced Vegetables are $23, they're also pretty poor. everything else is thirty.

the duck is new to me and looks interesting, I'll grant that.

I might have exaggerated...one star might be a bit too low...I could see an argument for two...I was going off the memory of spending close to a $100 a person for a glorified (and better) version of Chat 'n' Chew down the street -- which is most of the USC menu no matter how it's described.

"Then you're making the claim that three-star restaurants from the 1980s deserve one star in 2007. I think that claim fails on its face. "

Like I just noted, a two-star drop might be a bit much. But I am confident in saying that there probably wasn't a four-star restaurant in the 80's that if was opened de novo today, would garner four.

FG: you yourself have critiqued the JG flagship for being behind the times...almost intimating that maybe it didn't deserve four...

but maybe we can all just agree on a one-star across the board drop....

[Nathan]

"Oh Nathan, nothing "sucks" at USC. If it did, it would be off the menu in a heartbeat. Some may not suit your taste, but to use that term is a bit over the top."

with reference to the "Indian Spiced Vegetables"....I'll use that term.

If they were a $5 side dish I would think differently.

[Nathan]

I really doubt that JG or Keller are spending any time whatsoever envying DM. Do they respect him? I'm sure they do.

Seriously, there is no important restaurant group in North America then Keller's.

We could probably argue all day on whether DM's group is the most important in New York -- but in North America? Imo, its not even close.

[oakapple]

"Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with preparing food well that is no longer perceived as cutting-edge."

of course not.  but is it worth two or three stars?  certainly not at those prices.  and some of the dishes at USC simply suck.

←

There's that word again: simply. Anyhow, if some of the dishes "simply suck," then USC isn't a three-star restaurant — not because it is still serving 1980s recipes, but because it's serving bad food. While all restaurants have their soft spots, I firmly believe that no dish at a three-star restaurant should "simply suck."

But given the number of people who truly enjoy the place, including Fat Guy, I think it's pretty clear that USC isn't sucking in a simple way — even assuming that it sucks in any way at all.

[Fat Guy]

Nathan, let me say that I agree with much of what you're saying, and in part with the main conclusions of Bruni's review. My issue, in both cases, is with the tone and scope of the claims. I mean, I don't love Union Square Cafe so much. My life would go on just fine without it. I think it's ridiculous that it occupies one of the top two Zagat positions year in year out. Likewise, I stopped going to Gramercy Tavern for about three years because it had slipped (I think I went once during that time), and am only just now going back on account of the transition. But the claim that either is a mediocre restaurant is really hard to accept.

[Fat Guy]

The vegetable plate at Union Square Cafe is not, by the way, an '80s dish, at least I don't think so. As best I can remember, it was adopted after Floyd Cardoz came to Tabla -- a rare example of cross-pollination of recipes within the USHG. I really don't think all that highly of the dish, but it's the vegetarian dish of choice at that place -- though were I a vegetarian I'd stick with the pastas, which tend to be superb.

[Todd36]

Nathan, let me say that I agree with much of what you're saying, and in part with the main conclusions of Bruni's review. My issue, in both cases, is with the tone and scope of the claims. I mean, I don't love Union Square Cafe so much. My life would go on just fine without it. I think it's ridiculous that it occupies one of the top two Zagat positions year in year out. Likewise, I stopped going to Gramercy Tavern for about three years because it had slipped (I think I went once during that time), and am only just now going back on account of the transition. But the claim that either is a mediocre restaurant is really hard to accept.

←

I've eaten lunch several times fairly recently at Gramercy Taven, and while it was fine, it was not a top restaurant. It still does quite a business.

[Nathan]

I think we're in general agreement.

"But the claim that either is a mediocre restaurant is really hard to accept. "

I didn't mean to purport that. that's why I backed off USC as a one-star...it's certainly hard to countenance as a three star. I do think it's overpriced for what it's serving.

[BryanZ]

I think it's fair to say that USC is a mediocre restaurant if one (mistakenly) places it among best restaurants in New York. As people have alluded to now, three stars for The Bar Room might artificially inflate expectations to the point where customers may actually be disappointed with their experience.

I think this has already happened (for the past several years, or at least as long as I can remember) to USC. I know when I went to USC a couple years ago (with my girlfriend's father; I wouldn't go to USC on my own incidentally) and saw the tuna with wasabi mashed potatoes, I actually laughed. That was my simple gut reaction and had I known the restaurant had three stars, I would've been disappointed with the menu itself. Then again, those are my tastes, but I think that says something. I ended up ordering the tuna for fun and it was a pretty good, if totally unimaginative, dish.

To return to Bruni, what we've established is that Bruni's commentary on GT and USC is hard to refute, he simply approached it in a somewhat inappropriate way. I agree that the comments concerning GT were especially unfair because the restaurant is in transition.

[Fat Guy]

There's an unfortunate trend in criticism that is biased against restaurants that do classic things well. You see it in Bruni's comment about Bouley, "The pairing of citrus dressing with a seafood carpaccio (scallops, in this case) is a tired, uninspired concept." Is it David Bouley's fault that a concept he helped to invent has been so widely replicated by others who aren't as good at it?

←

It's biased against classics because today's critics don't understand the classics. The classics demand actual knowledge: in the case of French haute-cuisine classics, there are formal standards for determining whether they're good or not, and even latter-day classics require technical evaluation rather than just impressionistic comment. The death of the classics was the greatest thing to happen to clueless restaurant reviewers, because it removed the need for expertise -- it removed even the possibility of expertise -- and it made it nearly impossible to refute anything a reviewer says about food. It allowed people like William Grimes and Frank Bruni to become restaurant reviewers, even though they went into the job knowing less about food than the average food blogger. So you can be sure that most of today's critics will stay as far away from classics as possible, and that whatever they do, rarely, say about classics will be pretty ignorant.

I think the same anti-classics trend that exists in criticism pervades the tastes of younger gourmets as well. I mean, you look at Bryan's comment:

I ended up ordering the tuna for fun and it was a pretty good, if totally unimaginative, dish.

←

As mentioned above in the Bouley example: does it make a difference if Union Square Cafe invented that dish? That would certainly make it not unimaginative. That ten thousand other restaurants copied it would make it no less imaginative. If, after it has been copied by ten thousand other restaurants, Union Square Cafe still makes the best example of it, that's saying something. (These are just hypotheticals -- I don't actually know the history of the dish, though I vaguely remember reading something about it in the USC cookbook awhile back).

[BryanZ]

You certainly bring up good points. I was simply commenting on the context under which I ate it. It was a good version of that dish, yeah, but from my perspective unimaginative as of the moment in time two years ago when I had it.

[vivin]

Fat Guy,

I have read all your comments in this thread. I have thought about this issue a lot (and faced it with restaurants in my family).

If a restaurant is a three or a four star restaurant (or has garnered a reputation that it is a superior place) and charges more than the average restaurant for its food - Do I have the right to expect an above average meal when I pay the higher price? I think so. I demand it. I do not always get it.

This happens to a lot of older restaurants.

Are they good restaurants? Yes.

Can they blow your mind with good tasty food if they want to? Yes.

Is there a decent chance that if you wander in you might experience a so-so meal. Yes (in my opinion).

I am not talking about innovation here. (btw, I read the USC menu - it looks good. I am just afraid of going there anymore and paying those prices and being disappointed).

If I pay a high price, I demand a certain quality of food (and service).

I have experienced this a lot of places (including my own family's). Excellence is hard to achieve. Maintaining excellence year in and year out is much harder.

I just feel that if someone is disappointed (in part due to hightened expectations) and says so, there is nothing wrong in it. Bruni's tone might put off some. Fair point. But the fact that GT is in transition means something needs fixing there. Does not mean you should avoid that restaurant. It usually means, as you rightly pointed out, that it is trying to get better. Usually a very good sign for patrons.

I cut a lot of slack to restaurants (having grown up in the industry). I recently had an insect on my table at a high priced restaurant and they reappeared even after repeated efforts to get rid of it. Obviously a problem for this not will be named restaurant. It did not distract me from my excellent meal there. I politely let them know that they had a problem. I would however be a lot less forgiving if they did not try.

Edited January 11, 2007 by vivin (log)

[oakapple]

I just feel that if someone is disappointed (in part due to hightened expectations) and says so, there is nothing wrong in it. Bruni's tone might put off some. Fair point. But the fact that GT is in transition means something needs fixing there.

←

Let's distinguish GT's responsibilities as a (purported) three-star restaurant, and Bruni's responsibilities as a critic.

GT may be in transition, but its price structure is not. As far as I know, GT has neither lowered its prices, nor put up a sign saying "Buyer beware: we are in transition." Diners go to GT expecting a three-star experience, and the evidence suggests that they aren't consistently getting it. That is not acceptable, and there's nothing wrong with any of us saying so.

The chief restaurant critic of the New York Times has additional responsibilities. Re-reviews are very infrequent, meaning that Bruni's statements will be the paper's official position for a very, very long time. It is therefore irresponsible for a review of EMP & the Bar Room to make obliquely critical comments about another restaurant at the very moment when the old chef has departed, and the new chef just arrived. Those comments will be part of the public record for many years, long after they have ceased to have any relevance.

Edited January 11, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

If a restaurant is a three or a four star restaurant (or has garnered a reputation that it is a superior place) and charges more than the average restaurant for its food - Do I have the right to expect an above average meal when I pay the higher price? I think so. I demand it. I do not always get it.

←

I don't think it's a question of "rights." I think, yes, it's reasonable from a consumer perspective to expect more from a more expensive restaurant, just as, from a consumer perspective, you should be able to purchase better sculptures and paintings for more money. But the cost of a meal doesn't change what the meal is, just as the sculpture is the sculpture no matter what you paid for it. So from a critic's perspective, I think price should be just about the least relevant consideration to a restaurant reviewer.

The price doesn't affect, in any way, the essential nature of what's supposed to be the subject of the review. When you review an opera (or insert any other arts performance or anything else except consumer electronics and cars), it doesn't matter if the tickets cost $10 or $1,000 -- the review isn't about that. There should be an information box that says how much tickets cost. Some people will care, some won't -- let them decide. A critic could even mention in a review, "The Hornblower Opera continues to be a great opera, but at $1,000 a ticket it's overpriced." Or, "The Longwharf Opera is as good as any, and at $10 it's also a bargain." But you don't say "The Longwharf Opera is better than the Hornblower Opera because it's cheaper." That would be crazy. And to obsess about price to the point where the whole system of evaluation starts to depend as much on price as on food -- that's nonsensical.

"We've lowered the rating of Joe Smith's new Greatest Hits Volume IV album because it costs $5 more than comparable albums."

"The new Johnson Office Tower would be a much better work of architecture if it had cost half as much."

"The Weasel Queen is the best show on Broadway because it costs half as much as The Lion King and, other than the fact that you have to sit on the floor, is just as enjoyable."

[vivin]

I disagree.

Whenever there are alternatives available, as there are in the restaurant industry, you have to consider what the restaurant charges in comparison to its peers. How can you judge a meal in vaccum. If you are ok comparing two restaurants, why are you averse to comparing it to a dollar number? I just do not understand how you are saying comparing the food to its dollar number should not be done. If the dollar number is high enough, should I not just hire the restaurant chef and have them cook for me at home. I pay to go to a restaurant because the cost of obtaining the meal (and ambience) at home is high compared to going to the restaurant. And the NYT considers price doesn't it?

Take the case of opera. Many city dwellers think the Met opera is too expensive for what you get. Many of them go to the City opera. The city opera does not have the pedigree and does not get the starred names. Do you get a bigger bang for your buck? I think so. Does that mean I would give lesser stars to the Met vs. the city opera? I would give them equal number of stars (as Bruni gave Kittichai and Sri).

Even forgetting the value issue, Shouldn't one expect the probability of getting a good experience at a 3/4 star restaurant to be higher than a 1/2 star restaurant? If not, what is the point of the stars? Just that a 3/4 star restaurant cooked better meals at some point in time in the past than a 1/2 star?

Edited January 11, 2007 by vivin (log)

[Fat Guy]

Were there to be stars assigned to operas, it seems self-evident that opera critics should not bump up an opera's star rating because the tickets are a good value. Rather, they should provide that information, maybe comment on it, but not rate an opera higher because of it. It would make no sense to do so.

[Nathan]

regardless of whether price should be taken into account, the Times guidelines say that it is.

I think it's fair to say that Bruni weighs price more heavily than did his predecessors. One may certainly disagree with this weighing...but it is a coherent factor within his reviews. And Bruni's ratings only make sense when one takes this into account

[Fat Guy]

I agree with that, Nathan.

[oakapple]

Although the Times does not award stars to opera performances, I think it's pretty clear that the critics don't review the New York City Opera differently because its top ticket price is lower.

Even if the opera critic were to take price into account, God only knows how he would do it. I mean, the performance is fundamentally the same thing, whether you paid $300 for the best box seats or watched it for free on PBS. And while the Met has a higher top price than the NYCO, it has a lower bottom price.

For restaurants, there is a pretty long history of taking price into account. As Leonard Kim pointed out, Canaday wrote in the Times 33 years ago:

3/8/1974 (Canaday): "I'd like to get to get a few things straight about the stars. . . A restaurant serving excellent food at high prices will get a lower rating than one serving food of the same quality at reasonable prices."  [four stars is now "extraordinary"] 

←

Maybe the Times has been getting it wrong all these years, but clearly it's an approach with some pedigree.

I do agree with Fat Guy that price should be the least important of the factors, for the reasons he states.

[oakapple]

regardless of whether price should be taken into account, the Times guidelines say that it is.

I think it's fair to say that Bruni weighs price more heavily than did his predecessors.  One may certainly disagree with this weighing...but it is a coherent factor within his reviews.  And Bruni's ratings only make sense when one takes this into account

←

I am neither persuaded that Bruni is taking price into account more than his predecessors, nor that this is the only explanation for his ratings.

[Sneakeater]

It's biased against classics because today's critics don't understand the classics. The classics demand actual knowledge: in the case of French haute-cuisine classics, there are formal standards for determining whether they're good or not, and even latter-day classics require technical evaluation rather than just impressionistic comment. The death of the classics was the greatest thing to happen to clueless restaurant reviewers, because it removed the need for expertise -- it removed even the possibility of expertise -- and it made it nearly impossible to refute anything a reviewer says about food. It allowed people like William Grimes and Frank Bruni to become restaurant reviewers, even though they went into the job knowing less about food than the average food blogger. So you can be sure that most of today's critics will stay as far away from classics as possible, and that whatever they do, rarely, say about classics will be pretty ignorant.

←

Word.

[vivin]

I am neither persuaded that Bruni is taking price into account more than his predecessors, nor that this is the only explanation for his ratings.

I agree with you there.

[Sneakeater]

Of course, opera reviews don't have stars. And, as I keep insisting, it's reductive and even, if you want to look it that way, demeaning that restaurant reviews do.

[oakapple]

Of course, opera reviews don't have stars.  And, as I keep insisting, it's reductive and even, if you want to look it that way, demeaning that restaurant reviews do.

←

Do the restaurants feel demeaned? To the contrary, I suspect Danny Meyer and Daniel Humm are absolutely delighted with their three stars at Eleven Madison Park.

And I suspect Drew Nieporent was absolutely delighted with his two stars at Mai House last week. (Actually, I know he is delighted, because he posted a congratulatory letter from one of his celebrity friends in the restaurant's front window.)

Of course, those who fail to receive the stars they wanted aren't as happy, but any such system necessarily implies there will be winners and losers. I doubt the feeling is much different after an opera production gets panned, even though no stars are at stake.