Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[slkinsey]

Star ratings wouldn't make sense in the context of opera, where casts tend to be together for maybe a half-dozen performances and the reviews primarily focus on the individuals executing a known score of generally acknowledged worth (as well as the staging and set design, if a new production). On the other hand, in musical theater where casts and productions run for years at 8 performances a week, it might make some sense to give, say, 3 stars to Spamelot and 1 star to Cats (or whatever). Just like with restaurant reviews, the star ratings would begin to become stale after a while and those shows that were still running would merit a re-review and a new rating.

[Leonard Kim]

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. 

←

The kind of internet writing you refer to may mean that one's displeasure is more directly accessible by the community-at-large (while the critic in question may choose to ignore or be unaware of its existence.) However, you have to think that the old-fashioned letter-to-the-editor allowed most anyone to express the same displeasure and be read by somebody who matters, though (unless published) hidden from the rest of us. Reichl's memoir has multiple references to such things.

I bring this up because Mimi Sheraton, at least, sometimes would write about what her readers would say after a review appeared. For example, in February of 1979, she gave the three-month-old Italian restaurant, Claudio's, three stars. Just a few weeks later, she appended an "a la carte" note to a review of Dodin-Bouffant reading, "A few weeks ago, Claudio's. . . was reviewed and given three stars. Apparently the ensuing crowds have been badly handled, because many complaints about the service, excessive waiting, and inexcusable rudeness have been sent in by readers. In view of this, perhaps it would be wise to give Claudio's a few months to settle down again before trying its interesting and original cuisine."

Five months later, in July '79, a new review of Claudio's appeared, reading, "Back in February, we were pleased to give a three-star rating to Claudio's. . . Almost as soon as the review was out, complaints began pouring in about the service and later about food as well. Several recent return visits provided evidence that the complaints concerning food were very well-founded." [sheraton reported no service problems and she "had no reason to suspect we were recognized." New rating? Fair.

What reaction would the restaurant critic get today if a comparable sequence of events unfolded?

This isn't the only example like this -- Sheraton gave three stars, then zero stars, before finally settling on two stars for Tre Scalini in the space of 1.2 years. Times have changed, huh?

[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.

←

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.

←

I don't mean it's demeaning to restauranteurs. I'm sure opera presenters (let alone singers) would be thrilled to get four stars. I mean it's demeaning to cuisine as a subject of serious attention.

Stars imply consumer evaluations. If that's what you want out of restaurant critiicism, and nothing more, then promote stars all you can.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Leonard Kim wrote about a restaurant called Claudio's, which received (in short order) three stars, and then zero, from Mimi Sheraton. Leonard has mentioned a few other examples like this.

In the star system today, a restaurant with three-star potential but inconsistent execution would receive a smackdown to two stars, and in an egregious case to one star, but practically never to zero.

An unfortunate problem with this system, is that you can't easily tell whether a two-star restaurant is "very good," or in fact a restaurant that ought to be "excellent," but is failing at it. It's a system that somehow accommodates both Le Cirque and Sripraphai at two stars.

From Leonard's examples, you get the impression that Sheraton used zero stars for smackdowns, leaving a landscape where those with one, two, or three stars were genuinely worthy at their level, instead of being failed attempts at higher levels. Leonard, is that in fact what Sheraton did?

[Nathan]

well, I think this helps prove my point about nostalgia for old critics not being realistic:

if Bruni gave a restaurant three stars, down graded it to zero and then gave it one in the space of a year and a half.....

we are more critical today because as I noted earlier in this thread, even though there have always been critics of critics...they didn't necessarily find each other. talking to like-minded people inevitably both reinforces and (here's the key part) exacerbates one's views.

[Sneakeater]

Anybody says ANYTHING bad about Mimi Sheraton they're gonna have to step outside.

[oakapple]

well, I think this helps prove my point about nostalgia for old critics not being realistic:

if Bruni gave a restaurant three stars, down graded it to zero and then gave it one in the space of a year and a half.....

←

You have to remember what Leonard has repeatedly pointed out — that in Sheraton's day almost all reviews were at least two restaurants, and sometimes more. She was therefore able to revisit restaurants far more frequently than Bruni can.

The nostalgia for critics like Mimi Sheraton is not because of their star ratings. It's because they were food professionals with an actual background in what they were writing about. Ultimately it is not the rating, but the quality of the writing behind it, that counts.

[Leonard Kim]

The problem with long posts is that new posts pop in while you're writing them. Sorry if some of this is now irrelevant. It addresses issues around the discussion of GT and USC. (And Marc, a new post about Sheraton is coming very soon.)

Quick, general points, somewhat repeating older posts of mine --

1) the nature of the beast is such that as time goes by, the bar for ambitious new restaurants, completely independent of ratings, goes up.

2) because of this, the options facing the restaurant critic are three -- adding a new rating (five stars) as the best restaurants get better (this was actually, perhaps jokingly, raised as a possibility in an old review I can dig up if anyone's interested), increasing the proportion of restaurants with the high 3-4 star ratings, or simply raising the standards (such that it's harder to get three stars now, than in the past) trusting that re-reviews and closings will keep ratings from getting too far out of whack.

3) the reality is that Bruni, at least, is going with the third strategy

4) If stars consider price, then they are a consumer service, if not, they are simply an indicator of product quality. These are not the same things. The star system was introduced in the dining out directory/guide section of the Times, not the restaurant reviews (to which they eventually migrated), suggesting their intended function was the former, though that point has probably gotten lost in the mists of times and results in some confusion today. That's why comparison with music performance reviews are tricky. If the Times did periodic reviews (and I for one would prefer this to the drivel that currently passes for music criticism in the Times) of music institutions, not performances, then that would be different. (I.e., the Met would have a single rating as a whole, City Opera would have a rating, etc.)

5) It's with the understanding that stars should be taking as consumer evaluations that the critics from Miller back would do frequent re-reviews. It's harder to view ratings as consumer evaluations if most have to be relevant for >10 years. From that standpoint, they might as well be arguably converted to consumer-independent, "aesthetics" ratings with price as no consideration.

6) I also submit that part of a **** and to a lesser extent *** rating is uniqueness and excitement, and that therefore, as new or similar restaurants appear, that may justifiably force a reduction in rating, even if the restaurant is basically unchanged.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Honestly, my opinion is that Sheraton took her visits completely at face value. She in fact (I think more than once) wrote that her "system" is simply to take the average of each of the visits she made to the restaurant in question. For example, in her 1978 review of La Caravelle (a restaurant that has had anywhere from 1-4 stars over the years), she gave two stars. She opens her review saying that since it opened in 1960, this was always considered one of the 3-4 best restaurants in the city, with justifiable 4 star ratings. A couple of paragraphs later, she writes, "in six visits spread over the last four months. . . we experienced two meals that were excellent, two that were very good, and two that ranged from good to mediocre. Since every rating is an averaging out of experiences, a two-star rating is what now seems in order for La Caravelle. What must also be noted in that averaging is how low the lows sink, compared with how high are the peak performances, and again we come out with a two-star rating."

[Sneakeater]

I think that if Lutece under Soltner magically reappeared tomorrow, most people here would say it's a three-star restaurant.

[oakapple]

1) the nature of the beast is such that as time goes by, the bar for ambitious new restaurants, completely independent of ratings, goes up.

2) because of this, the options facing the restaurant critic are three -- adding a new rating (five stars) as the best restaurants get better (this was actually, perhaps jokingly, raised as a possibility in an old review I can dig up if anyone's interested), increasing the proportion of restaurants with the high 3-4 star ratings, or simply raising the standards (such that it's harder to get three stars now, than in the past) trusting that re-reviews and closings will keep ratings from getting too far out of whack.

3) the reality is that Bruni, at least, is going with the third strategy

←

It's with great trepidation that one questions Leonard, because he usually has hard data for whatever he says. Nevertheless, I think I disagree.

Bruni hasn't said much about the star system as-such. But in one of his few comments about it, he said that the stars "chart ever-increasing levels of excitement" (or words to that effect). This doesn't really suggest that he has a conscious "strategy" stemming from the rising tide of restaurant quality.

Of course, it could be that, just by dumb luck, he happens to have implemented a strategy without realizing it. But if he has an actual "strategy," I don't think he's yet shared it with us.

It's hard to draw conclusions from Bruni's four-star reviews, because there aren't enough of them to be statistically significant. He awarded four stars to Per Se and Masa, both of which were expected. He smacked down Alain Ducasse, which many of us found incomprehensible. And he smacked down Bouley, and although the way he did it was ugly, most people conceded the restaurant had lost some of its lustre.

Bruni has awarded three stars to at least three restaurants that lack traditional three-star amenities (even if the food quality arguably justifies it): BLT Fish, A Voce, and now the Bar Room. Arguably, Perry Street also falls in this category. He's also smacked down a number of three-star aspirants, but I presume this has happened in every era.

[Nathan]

"stars "chart ever-increasing levels of excitement" (or words to that effect). This doesn't really suggest that he has a conscious "strategy" stemming from the rising tide of restaurant quality."

no, that one out of context quote suggests that he doesn't. however the very next sentence listed four factors that determined his level of excitement.

we went round and round on this before because everyone refused to read the next sentence (this was and is unfathomable to me)

[Leonard Kim]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I think that aspect of Bruni's rating strategy is dumb luck, but I also think it's the right thing to do.

A tricky aspect here is that Bruni can and has been criticized for somewhat different things.

1) Getting ratings wrong. Here's where I think the Sheraton comparison (wrt Claudio's and Tre Scalini) may be relevant. Wouldn't changing ratings that much with that frequency at least make one suspect that she's getting things wrong at least some of the time? I am not particularly convinced that Bruni is worse off here than his predecessors, and in that respect agree with Nathan.

2) Lack of expertise. This is perfectly fair, and will bother different people to different extents. Since I think SE can be a classical music critic, obviously I personally don't care too much about this. It's bad if it leads to vague or non-explanatory writing. Complete lack of expertise would make it difficult to judge context and originality. I think Bruni has done this long enough (and prepared enough before starting the job) that this isn't a huge issue. A lack of technical expertise might make it hard to assess whether something was difficult or easy to achieve, or whether it meets certain fixed, but arguably irrelevant criteria. Is that really important in this kind of review? A pianist who can make difficult passages look easy might be held in awe by his/her colleagues, but really, what interest does that hold for the average listener? It may even detract from the experience. Countless, sensitive listeners has deplored the negative effect of the "no wrong notes" technical standard today's classical musicians are held to. Up to a point, it makes no difference. Many wrong notes are undetectable to the non-expert. And it selects the wrong group of people practicing classical music today.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Leonard Kim (log)

[vivin]

1) In order to address ratings getting old -

There are rating systems for other products such as cars, stereos etc. that automatically eliminate a product from their standing if it has not been reviewed in a period of time. With stereos, it is typically 3 years. With cars, it is with each substantial overhaul - 3 or 4 years. A similar thing should apply to restaurants too, to a certain extent. Again, I might be in the minority here. This does not preclude, please note, a repeat star rating if the reviewer deems it. The re-review typically would result in reaffirmation (the bar for demotion is high). I can live with that much easier than rely upon a stale rating. Doesn't Michelin do this?

2) My own system is to look NOT ONLY at the level of stars but the change in star level. I have practiced this in Europe. I look for a high star level with a positive trend in stars. So a Michelin 2 star with aspirations for a third is better than a 3 star which has been around for a while. This happened to me at Guy Savoy in Paris. When I visited them with a 2 star rating, they showered so much attention on me that I was bowled over. Again, when they had their third star, they seemed to care a whole lot less.

[oakapple]

1) Getting ratings wrong.  Here's where I think the Sheraton comparison (wrt Claudio's and Tre Scalini) may be relevant.  Wouldn't changing ratings that much with that frequency at least make one suspect that she's getting things wrong at least some of the time?  I am not particularly convinced that Bruni is worse off here than his predecessors, and in that respect agree with Nathan.

←

Comparisons are difficult, as it's clear Sheraton was operating under a very different system. In this respect, I agree with your comment in the 2006 thread that the star system has changed a lot over the years.

Sheraton had the opportunity to re-visit restaurants much more frequently than Bruni can, and as you've documented in the past, she used the zero-star rating far more freely than more recent critics do. We don't know what Bruni would do if he was using her system.

In one of his blog posts, Bruni conceded that some restaurants probably wouldn't get the same rating if he went back six months or a year later. He also said that there's nothing he can do about it, because he has to spend most of his time investigating new restaurants, not re-checking the old ones.

It's notable that it took Bruni over 2½ years before he reviewed a restaurant he'd already written about, whereas one gets the impression that Sheraton did it all the time.

To put it another way, we really don't know whether Sheraton's original reviews of Claudio's and Tre Scalini were wrong — except in the sense that her crystal ball failed to predict their decline. Bruni may be no better. We just don't know, since unlike Sheraton he's not in the habit of promptly revisiting his mistakes.

Edited January 11, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Right, Bruni did take over 2.5 years before re-reviewing a restaurant he'd already reviewed. That is longer than any of his predecessors, but not egregiously so. Reichl was on the job 2 years before doing this (re-reviewing Nobu, which she'd already reviewed earlier) and Grimes was on for almost two years (Daniel).

However, I do think you're basically right, and that Grimes had the same problem. Speaking very roughly, Reichl and Grimes had the job for ~5 years. Reichl re-reviewed restaurants she'd previously reviewed about 10% of the time. Grimes? He re-reviewed himself only 4 times (Atelier, Ducasse, Daniel, and Papillon). Bruni is on a similar pace.

I don't know the figure now, but I once looked at how often Bryan Miller re-reviewed himself (i.e., not counting his predecessors) and it was some ridiculous high number.

One point -- Reichl and previous seemed have no problem doing a self re-review and giving the same rating as before. Grimes and Bruni's few examples have all involved changes in ratings. (Of course, their re-reviewing a predecessor's work often carried no ratings change.)

Edited January 11, 2007 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Fat Guy]

The restaurant business and dining culture have changed, not just the reviewers. The problem is that the reviewers haven't changed in such a way as to keep up with the industry or the culture.

On the industry side, there are many more restaurants. This makes frequent re-reviewing an impossibility. It might argue for more reviews that cover multiple restaurants, however what cuts against that is space. Because also on the industry side, restaurants have improved. There are many more that are artful -- it's not like when a place like the Quilted Giraffe was the exception: "Wow, these people treat cuisine kind of like art, how unusual, and they have Japanese influences!" I don't think critics pre-Miller really had the opportunity to treat cuisine as art, not because they didn't have the knowledge -- they were more knowledgeable than today's reviewers by far -- but because the industry was in an early, developing craft phase. So that demands more in-depth coverage. Also, the prevailing style of haute cuisine are no longer rooted in French classics, so they require more explanation, not that we're getting that.

Also demanding more in-depth coverage are today's far more knowledgeable and demanding consumers. The dining culture in the United States has moved forward by leaps and bounds in the past 30 years. It's almost unrecognizable. And this has been echoed in other aspects of the food culture. This audience has much higher expectations of restaurants, and needs serious critics who can keep up with the times.

[Leonard Kim]

Now I'm just being obnoxious, because I agree that there are more and better restaurants. (Though I disagree that this makes frequent re-reviewing impossible and that today's restaurants require more words to do justice. Just my opinion.)

But the Quilted Giraffe. . . Mimi Sheraton's review isn't any longer or explanatory than any other review. It's perhaps unsympathetic in a way that certain people might interpret as her not "getting it," but this is Mimi Sheraton, not Bruni we're talking about. It simply opens, "the Quilted Giraffe. . . is the city's newest bastion of nouvelle cuisine." She then takes a couple paragraphs to make swipes at nouvelle cuisine, both in general ("Improbable combinations of fruits, vegetables, fish, and meats as well as unexpected and inappropriate strains of sweetness -- almost standard flaws in the repertory of of the young nouvelle cuisine chefs of France -- are evident here also.") and in specific dishes. Verdict? 1 star.

Is this not the kind of review, relative expertise notwithstanding, that FG and others are deploring from Bruni? We're getting close to the stance that there has never been (or grudgingly 1 or 2) worthwhile or "with it" critics in the history of the paper, which is setting the bar too high, I think.

P.S. 2 years later, Sheraton bumped it to two stars. Only in '84, after 4.5 years, and a different critic (Burros), did Quilted Giraffe become a 4 star restaurant.

[Sneakeater]

I really miss the early days of nouvelle American cuisine.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!

[Fat Guy]

Leonard I must respectfully disagree with your characterization of the history of Quilted Giraffe reviews. If we are to take the reviews at face value, and certainly the dish descriptions confirm this, Mimi Sheraton totally got the Quilted Giraffe when it opened -- it's just that the dishes were ridiculous. Look at some of the examples from that review: chunks of lobster and monkfish (they called it lotte back then) in cream sauce with canteloupe balls and raspberries; sauteed chicken breasts with blueberries, blueberry vinegar, beets and broccoli. Thanks to dishes like that, American gastronomy is still living down its reputation in Europe for embracing food that's too sweet. I think you'll find plenty of knowledge, context and authority in Sheraton's first review of the Quilted Giraffe. What you'll also find is a general resistance to nouvelle cuisine: a suspicion that it's all gee-whiz fireworks without substance. And if somebody in 1979 wanted to believe that, maybe it was a reasonable position. It's not like there was much consequence to it. But today, when pretty much every haute cuisine restaurant serves nouvelle cuisine or derivatives, the ground has shifted. Yet, Bruni seems to know less about it than Sheraton.

That first Sheraton review is behind the paywall, but the second Sheraton review and the Burros review are public: here and here. Having not visited the restaurant during that time frame, I can only rely on the secondary epistemic criteria, however I think it's at least a fair assumption that the dish descriptions are factual. Taken together, those three reviews make complete sense and describe a restaurant progressing from one star to four, not just in terms of improved (and less sweet) dishes, but also in terms of general luxuriousness and maturity. The theme in Burros's first paragraph almost makes one think it's Sheraton's third review of the place, though subsequent stylistic differences do emerge.

[Nathan]

just a quick note:

its clear that Sheraton had 2 to 3 times as much space to write in as Grimes or Bruni.

[Leonard Kim]

just a quick note:

its clear that Sheraton had 2 to 3 times as much space to write in as Grimes or Bruni.

←

Is that really true?

[rich]

I ate at the Quilted Giraffe when it first opened in Manhattan. In fact, I ate there when it was in New Paltz. I recall reading the original Sheration review (after I ate there) and thought she was totally off-base in giving it one star. I thought it deserved zero. It was much, much better upstate. The city version was silly, obnoxious and pretentious.

However, by the final time (of four) I dined there (1985 I think) it was certainly one of the two best dining experiences I had in NYC (along with The Palace) up to that time.

It's not fair to either to compare Mimi with the current reviewer. She was/is a food professional, he knows a lot about popes.

Off topic here, but there were two excellent articles in yesterday's Staten Island Advance about the history of dining and food in NYC - get a copy if you can.

Edited January 12, 2007 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

On the subject of re-reviewing: Obviously, if the number of restaurants has increased, the review frequency must decrease. But if Bruni simply returned to the Sheraton/Miller custom of reviewing two restaurants most of the time, the number of reviews would nearly double.

It may be that restaurants are more diverse, and therefore more space is needed to describe them adequately. But there have been an awful lot of Bruni reviews in which at least half the material is filler.

And no: As far as I can see, Sheraton didn't have 2 to 3 times more space than Bruni.

[Fat Guy]

If I had to guess (and I hope somebody will do a statistical analysis -- word counts are given for post-1981 Times articles in the search results pages) I'd say it's more like 20-30% more space for the average review (as opposed to 200-300%), but that the most important feature reviews, such as the four-star reviews, still have equal space to past reviews (or maybe a little more).

I also agree that Bruni wastes space and could in many cases cover a couple of restaurants at a time while being as or more effective, however I think the better approach to multi-restaurant reviews is definitely the modern one, where restaurants are thematically connected rather than just randomly reviewed in the same place (though the Bar Room - EMP connection was a weak choice). In this sense, I think book reviews are a good model.

And, as I've said before, it would make a lot of sense to implement a third review, for mid-priced restaurants. This could be done for little or perhaps no additional cost.