"Tyranny - It's What's For Dinner" by Corby Kummer in Vanity Fair

[B.A.R.]

Not sure where to put this and can't believe we have not discussed tasting menus in an individual thread.

This is an interesting read: A look at Tasting Menus

Although I have had several tasting menus over the last 5-7 years that I found exciting, provacative, and delicious, I have had many, many more that were just joyless, tedious, never ending affairs that left me hungrier, tired, and considerably poorer.

[DonRocks]

Not sure where to put this and can't believe we have not discussed tasting menus in an individual thread.

This is an interesting read: A look at Tasting Menus

Although I have had several tasting menus over the last 5-7 years that I found exciting, provacative, and delicious, I have had many, many more that were just joyless, tedious, never ending affairs that left me hungrier, tired, and considerably poorer.

This is a *great* article.

[Heather]

This is a *great* article.

Brilliant. I couldn't agree more with this:

But, ah, how nice it would be if at the world’s most celebrated restaurants we could get back to the point where the paying customer picks what and how much she or he eats, guided by helpful but not overbearing suggestions as to what a diner might enjoy most

I'm on the record here on more than one thread as disliking tasting menus -- *especially* mandatory tasting menus.The trend towards lack of dining choices has driven my disillusionment with the DC dining scene, even more than a lack of money or time.

[B.A.R.]

I'm on the record here on more than one thread as disliking tasting menus -- *especially* mandatory tasting menus.The trend towards lack of dining choices has driven my disillusionment with the DC dining scene, even more than a lack of money or time.

For me, I am less bothered by the lack of choice than I am the amount of time it takes (several times I have simply asked for the meal to stop and PAID IN FULL), and the fact that I would much rather eat a single meal than 30 tastes of a meal.

[DonRocks]

For those who don't know, the classical French menu at upscale restaurants *always* had prix fixe menus (sometimes 1, 2, or 3 different levels), but also a page of a la carte courses available (which were often fairly expensive; the prix fixe menus were often the better value). The diners could order whatever they wanted, and there wasn't all that much "the entire table must order the tasting menu." This article really resonated with me. I very much like the option of ordering a la carte, and I absolutely don't buy the "I begin to lose interest after the second or third bite argument" at all; quite to the contrary, that's precisely the point when my interest begins to build, if the course is any good.

[Heather]

For me, I am less bothered by the lack of choice than I am the amount of time it takes (several times I have simply asked for the meal to stop and PAID IN FULL), and the fact that I would much rather eat a single meal than 30 tastes of a meal.

I would also prefer to select a bottle or two of wine (unless dining solo ) and see how it drinks over time, than be presented with a dozen different "tastes." YMMV, but that way leads to palate fatigue and intoxication.

Good point, Don. I have lesser issues with prix fixe menus, which tend to be a manageable 3-4 courses. It's the mandatory 30-course degustation that sends me running for the hills.

[Heather]

Well, and there's this: "Tasting Menus and Molecular Gastronomy are too often the domain of charlatans"

[B.A.R.]

I would also prefer to select a bottle or two of wine (unless dining solo ) and see how it drinks over time, than be presented with a dozen different "tastes." YMMV, but that way leads to palate fatigue and intoxication.

I'm with you! I was merely trying to say lack of choice was the thing I despised the least.

For those who don't know, the classical French menu at upscale restaurants *always* had prix fixe menus (sometimes 1, 2, or 3 different levels), but also a page of a la carte courses available (which were often fairly expensive; the prix fixe menus were often the better value). The diners could order whatever they wanted, and there wasn't all that much "the entire table must order the tasting menu." This article really resonated with me. I very much like the option of ordering a la carte, and I absolutely don't buy the "I begin to lose interest after the second or third bite argument" at all; quite to the contrary, that's precisely the point when my interest begins to build, if the course is any good.

Me too! Love a good Prix Fixe menu but am totally put off by many of these elaborate, precious, and well executed ill conceived "tasting menus". I ate at the "Chef's Table" of a very well known and highly regarded restaurant a few years back. Somewhere around course 15 and hour 3, I would have gladly paid EXTRA for any of the entrees going out from the ala carte menu just to stave off my hunger pangs and end the monotony and madness.

More importantly, I don't want to eat like that regularly, and the necessity of a tasting menu is how I cull my dining choices herd.

[Eric Ziebold]

This is a *great* article.

Really?.?.?...

"Great"???

Based on......?

[DonRocks]

Really?.?.?...

"Great"???

Based on......?

Based on calling attention, in a completely over-the-top (but well-written) fashion, to what I think is a very real (first-world) problem, or at least a very real issue, albeit a small one. I can count the number of restaurants in the DC area on two hands that force diners to have extended tasting menus, so this is not a widespread pestilence, but this is the first time I recall an article even addressing the growing trend. So to answer your question:

1) It's well-written

2) It's amusing

3) It uses mockery in a Jon Stewart-esque way to poke fun at a real issue

4) It's the first time I remember seeing the issue addressed head-on in such a major publication

I'm not a big Corby Kummer fan (he comes across as ivory-tower snotty-arrogant to me), but from what little I've read by him, this is probably the thing I enjoyed the most. I do, however, think he made a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, when people go see an opera, they're held hostage to 3-4 hours of whatever the hell the composer and conductor wants them to hear, and they happily shell out $125 for the privilege. So ... what's the difference? I have seen no less than 30 operas in my life, and finally came to the decision that I just don't like sitting there that long, so you know what? I just don't go. It doesn't mean I don't respect them, but they're just not for me at this stage in my life.

Fair answer?

[johnb]

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. If you don't like it, don't go.

There are hundreds or thousands of great restaurants out there that will present you with a menu of choices, season things to your taste, get you out quickly or slowly or however you want it. It's not as if anyone chooses to go to Per Se or any other of the very tiny number of such places not knowing what is in store.

It looks as if those who are complaining about this feel entitled to dine at the restaurants with the highest reputations, but do so on their own terms. In short, to have it both ways. That's not how the world works. At least not the high-end restaurant world that has evolved from modern foodie culture.

There is a certain subset of highly skilled chefs who think the way they choose to do things leads to the best result on the plate, and they present their offering to potential customers that way. Take it or leave it. Egotistic? Yes. Justified? You tell me. They can get away with it because there are enough potential customers slavishly trying to get reservations to always keep them filled up at exorbitant prices (so they can brag to their friends that they ate at the No. 1 place??). Why should they do it any other way? Why would anyone expect any other outcome?

These guys are businessmen and they are skilled at what they do. They do it for what it gets them, whether it's money, fame, whatever. They don't view themselves as your servant, and they know it is you who wants to rub shoulders with them, not the other way around. In this world it is they, not you, who get to make the rules. They, not you, are in the driver's seat. We put them there.

So if you want to go, suck it up. If you don't want to suck it up, don't play the game. But if you do go, don't complain about the rules afterwards.

[jayandstacey]

These guys are businessmen and they are skilled at what they do. They do it for what it gets them, whether it's money, fame, whatever. They don't view themselves as your servant, and they know it is you who wants to rub shoulders with them, not the other way around. In this world it is they, not you, who get to make the rules. They, not you, are in the driver's seat. We put them there.

So if you want to go, suck it up. If you don't want to suck it up, don't play the game. But if you do go, don't complain about the rules afterwards.

Doesn't the same hold true of the writer? Thus making it OK that the writer writes whatever (s)he wants, and it is upon us to read or not read?

If the masses oppose the writing, eventually the writer is out of a job the same way the chef is. Both chef and writer must appeal to the masses and will wield some power if the masses embrace them. This writer certainly has us masses 'sitting in his restaurant' for better or worse, no?

At the end of the day, this is all "hysteria on the way to the grave" as a co-worker of mine used to say. There's no real, true absolutes as this stuff doesn't really matter per se. If a chef can make a killing with a relentless tasting menu, so be it. If a writer can make a splash with a criticism of same, so be that. Both are just making their way in the world and we can choose to side with either, both or neither. Regardless, we'll be dead within our lifetimes.

[Mark Slater]

So ... what's the difference? I have seen no less than 30 operas in my life, and finally came to the decision that I just don't like sitting there that long, so you know what? I just don't go. It doesn't mean I don't respect them, but they're just not for me at this stage in my life.

There are good operas and bad operas.

[DonRocks]

If the masses oppose the writing, eventually the writer is out of a job the same way the chef is. Both chef and writer must appeal to the masses and will wield some power if the masses embrace them. This writer certainly has us masses 'sitting in his restaurant' for better or worse, no?

Speaking of being held hostages to tasting menus, a good friend of mine reminded me that people are queuing up outside of Little Serow.

Hmm ... maybe this isn't such a problem after all.

[Eric Ziebold]

Doesn't the same hold true of the writer? Thus making it OK that the writer writes whatever (s)he wants, and it is upon us to read or not read?

If the masses oppose the writing, eventually the writer is out of a job the same way the chef is. Both chef and writer must appeal to the masses and will wield some power if the masses embrace them. This writer certainly has us masses 'sitting in his restaurant' for better or worse, no?

At the end of the day, this is all "hysteria on the way to the grave" as a co-worker of mine used to say. There's no real, true absolutes as this stuff doesn't really matter per se. If a chef can make a killing with a relentless tasting menu, so be it. If a writer can make a splash with a criticism of same, so be that. Both are just making their way in the world and we can choose to side with either, both or neither. Regardless, we'll be dead within our lifetimes.

I'm not exactly sure the same holds true of the writer.

I'm not a lawyer but, don't we have some sort of libel laws in this country? Unfortunately, the writers need to embellish the facts to try and win the reader over to his point of view, go beyond an embellishment, beyond misrepresentation, he makes bold statements that are simply not true. Subjective statements about his opinion, sure that's what he's paid to write, like it or not. But to outright make up facts???

I'm not exactly sure that's the same issue. An opinion peace shoud be supported by some facts, shouldn't it?

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain

[DonRocks]

-I'm not a lawyer but, don't we have some sort of libel laws in this country? Unfortunately, the writers need to embellish the facts to try and win the reader over to his point of view, go beyond an embellishment, beyond misrepresentation, he makes bold statements that are simply not true. Subjective statements about his opinion, sure that's what he's paid to write, like it or not. But to outright make up facts???

I'm not exactly sure that's the same issue. An opinion peace shoud be supported by some facts, shouldn't it?

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"- Mark Twain

Eric, would you mind supporting this statement with some detail? In particular the part about making up facts?

[Eric Ziebold]

Based on calling attention, in a completely over-the-top (but well-written) fashion, to what I think is a very real (first-world) problem, or at least a very real issue, albeit a small one. I can count the number of restaurants in the DC area on two hands that force diners to have extended tasting menus, so this is not a widespread pestilence, but this is the first time I recall an article even addressing the growing trend. So to answer your question:

1) It's well-written

2) It's amusing

3) It uses mockery in a Jon Stewart-esque way to poke fun at a real issue

4) It's the first time I remember seeing the issue addressed head-on in such a major publication

I'm not a big Corby Kummer fan (he comes across as ivory-tower snotty-arrogant to me), but from what little I've read by him, this is probably the thing I enjoyed the most. I do, however, think he made a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, when people go see an opera, they're held hostage to 3-4 hours of whatever the hell the composer and conductor wants them to hear, and they happily shell out $125 for the privilege. So ... what's the difference? I have seen no less than 30 operas in my life, and finally came to the decision that I just don't like sitting there that long, so you know what? I just don't go. It doesn't mean I don't respect them, but they're just not for me at this stage in my life.

Fair answer?

1.) Well written. Maybe gramatically, but I don't think an opinion piece that distorts and embellishes the factual information beyond recognition makes for a very well written argument.

2.) Amusing. You mean amusing in the way its fun to laugh at someone else's expense, even if the one making the jokes is making things up as he goes?

3.) No comment on mockery as I don't follow Jon Stewart.

4.) Addressed head-on. Seriously??

How is he addressing an issue "head-on" when he's making a mockery of the issue by blatantly making up a story?

Unfortunately, I don't feel he's addressing the issue "head-on" it appears more to me that he's got an axe to grind and he's using the article to shoot spitballs at people.

"I never made the pilgramage to El Bulli and never wanted to, having been in Adria's papal presence on too many occasions."- Corby Kummer

hmmm.....never ate at the restaurant. Awful lof of derogatory comments about something he has no first hand experience with. Fine if you want to take cheap shots, but an issue as important as this I think you should stick to what you can talk about having experienced.

I could more or less pick apart the article. For obvious reasons the TFL parts would be easier for me to do but that's not the point.

Who really wants to take the topic on "head-on?" But first what is the topic?

I would contend that the topic is a shift, a change in how hospitality by some chefs AND diners is perceived.

It could be an incredibly interesting discussion, (or book, something like "The Last Days of Haute Cuisine-Patric Kuh")

I think this is a huge issue. I'd love to host a discussion about it. I'd love to be interviewed by/collaborate with someone that wants to do the topic justice (Phyllis, Tim, Don, Waitman???) I don't look at it as much of an "issue" as a shift in the homogeneous perception of what hospitality is. Today is a moment in time.

If you don't agree with that I end with this thought for now:

In 1997 after a meal at The French Laundry, Ruth Reichl writes an article for the NY Times, and calls it the most exciting place to eat in the United States

In 2013, Corby Kummer writes an article in Vanity Fair, with a VERY different perspective of the same meal.

[Eric Ziebold]

Eric, would you mind supporting this statement with some detail? In particular the part about making up facts?

From 1996-2004 the longest Tasting Menu ever served at The French Laundry was 33 courses. (Possibly 31, I still have the menu but its in my attic and I want to say that was probably in '98 or '99)

While that may sound horrifying, and not that far off from what Corby describes, that was the exception, not the norm. An exception because one of our regulars wanted to have lunch AND dinner at The French Laundry. Very entertaining story that I will tell you at a later time if you'd like.

He asked to do it again about a year later, Thomas said no.

In 1997 the longest tasting menu we would have done would have been under 20 courses, roughly half of what Corby is claiming to have eaten.

At that time there was a prix fixe menu with 8-10 first courses options, 4 fish courses options, 4 meat courses options, 4 cheese courses options, and 5 dessert options. As well as the tasting menu and vegetarian tasting menu. We offered if they would like us to do a menu for them, and they said yes.

Ruth Reichl later wrote it was the most exciting restaurant to eat in the United States. Didn't really sound like she regretted putting herself in our hands.

[DonRocks]

I think this is a huge issue. I'd love to host a discussion about it. I'd love to be interviewed by/collaborate with someone that wants to do the topic justice (Phyllis, Tim, Don, Waitman???) I don't look at it as much of an "issue" as a shift in the homogeneous perception of what hospitality is. Today is a moment in time.

If you don't agree with that I end with this thought for now:

In 1997 after a meal at The French Laundry, Ruth Reichl writes an article for the NY Times, and calls it the most exciting place to eat in the United States

In 2013, Corby Kummer writes an article in Vanity Fair, with a VERY different perspective of the same meal.

Okay, well, here's your discussion. Eric, you're saying that Kummer distorted and made up facts, but you haven't said which facts he made up. Were you at TFL during that 1997 meal? What facts did he make up? That's all I'm asking you to clarify because those are serious allegations.

---

ETA: Never mind. We posted at the same time, and you just answered my questions.

For those wanting to refer back to the original Vanity Fair piece, here it is.

[Disclaimer: Eric is one of my best friends, but there is no collaboration here. I welcome a rebuttal from Corby, and everyone will be treated as equals, with no favoritism.]

Edited January 12, 2013 by DonRocks

[Eric Ziebold]

Okay, well, here's your discussion. Eric, you're saying that Kummer distorted and made up facts, but you haven't said which facts he made up. Were you at TFL during that 1997 meal? What facts did he make up? That's all I'm asking you to clarify because those are serious allegations.

Yes I was in the Kitchen.

Was Corby actually there, that I'm grey on hence I haven't said that.

Yes it was Ruth, yes it was Phyllis, I thought the third person was Elaine Light who was a food writer in Pittsburgh, but that could have been the previous year.

It was 3 different tasting menus, the only way you get to 40 courses was by adding up the courses from all 3 menus. So when Corby talks twice about the 40 course French Laundry menus, he's embellishing to the point of lying. I'm not saying he only had 39, or 38.

He's saying he had no choice in what he was served. I'm saying they wanted us to do a menu for them.

He's saying he was served 40 courses. I'm saying he wasn't even served half of that.

[clayrae]

What johnb said. You don't like it, don't go. Anyone who is signing up for a tasting menu knows exactly what they are getting into. You want to order a la carte there are a million resturants that will happly cater to you. I love tasting menus. As much as I love thinking and planning and laboring over what I am going to serve to my own guests, I love "unconditional surrender"ing to the chef. Their plan, their choices, their timeline. Hell, I made the reservation, I don't have anywhere else to be. I wonder what Kummer would say about Wagner's Ring Cycle...

Having dined at Per Se, The French Laundry, and Alinea I think a tasting menu is what you bring to it. Expect to be tired and bored and you will be. Know what you are signing up for and be open to the experience. I had a blast of each of those meals and engaged with my dining companions and the servers, quite a lot, nothing stoic or forced about it.

[Poivrot Farci]

" Redzepi, whose Muslim immigrant father met his Danish mother..."

More precisely -and more relevant to the mother’s citizenship than channeling Steve Doocy and quoting an on-line interview- René’s father is Albanian (23% of the world population is Muslim, most living in, like, China).

Though I am not a 5-time James Bears Award winning journalist, in my reality Marc Veyrat was born almost 20 years after Bocuse, Guérard and Girardet and is revered for making weird pancakes out of lentil flour or obscure mountain herbs and other progressive whatnot that would find a Tetris fit in Adrià’s kitchen lab, Noma or even Ripple.

Weenie-foodie consumer advocates are unable to understand the practical dollars and sense that come from a lengthy fixed-course menu. It helps to guarantee a level of consistency and execution worthy of the praise and at the very least ensures they can charge a premium for the experience without having costly, highly perishable foodstuffs left over on a Saturday night.

[sheldman]

I am not vouching for everything in the article - but what I found myself agreeing with most of all, in the article, was not so much on the question of "tasting menus, yea or nay" but on the question of what sort of high-end restaurant experience feels best or worst. For me - and I infer for the writer also - the worst problem comes not just when there is a tasting menu, but when there is a tasting menu combined with other elements that make the diner feel cold and controlled. The difference can be in the staff - do they smile and talk with you like human beings, or are they trained to act like royal court attendants (which gives me the feeling that they fantasize that I will be first against the wall when the revolution comes)? The difference can also be whether the restaurant is willing to make any changes to accommodate needs or preferences, or whether the attitude is "tough luck for you."

Trying to be specific, though without nastiness, I will say: the restaurant here in DC that is exactly what I don't want, in this regard, has a four-letter name. What a miserable experience, for me with my own particular psychological make-up, on the occasions I have been there. Cold and grueling. At the other end of the spectrum is Highlands Bar & Grill (B'ham AL), which I recently wrote up in the Traveller board - a chef at the highest level, running a place that makes you feel like they are happy to be alive and happy that you are alive too.

As was said above, restaurants are free to do the "tyranny" if they want. Some customers clearly want it. But I appreciate the fact that there is some push-back in a high profile place.

[Edit: a wise man pointed out to me that my cleverness was not as clever as I thought. When I say "the restaurant ... has a four-letter name," I now add "and it's on 17th St. and the third letter is 'm'." Just didn't want to create a gratuitous google-trail to my only-1%-exaggerated critical reaction to the place.]

[lperry]

What johnb said. You don't like it, don't go. Anyone who is signing up for a tasting menu knows exactly what they are getting into.

Yes and no. We had a pretty bad tasting menu experience recently, not because the food wasn't wonderful, but because we didn't know what was coming next in terms of size, richness, and any other factors that would have had us both send back about half of each dish that was presented. We were both exceptionally full by the end when I managed to choke down just one bite of my dessert. Both of us felt uncomfortably full and didn't eat the next day until dinner, and that was a small salad.

In retrospect, the suggestion above (or in another thread? I can't locate it right now) to simply stop, pay, and leave is an excellent one. It just never even occurred to me I could do that without somehow insulting the chef or wasting food. Maybe I've been buying into the rhetoric that takes the focus off the fact that the restaurant industry is there to serve the client.

[Heather]

Weenie-foodie consumer advocates are unable to understand the practical dollars and sense that come from a lengthy fixed-course menu. It helps to guarantee a level of consistency and execution worthy of the praise and at the very least ensures they can charge a premium for the experience without having costly, highly perishable foodstuffs left over on a Saturday night.

I understand it, but why should I be willing to sacrifice my cash and comfort so that the restaurant can charge a premium for what I consider a less pleasurable experience?

It's reminding me more and more of the descriptions of post-Republic Latin banquets. Someone should revive the use of the lectus triclinaris.

[Bart]

I didn’t like this article, and I’m a big fan of tasting menus, but that’s not why I didn’t like it.

I feel like this guy had a bad experience at a tasting menu at Charlie Trotters and decided the entire system was flawed and bordering on illegal. He then uses charged words like “tyranny”, “oppression”, and “dictator” to describe the chefs and the meals at high end places. Come on! This ain’t North Korea. No one is forcing you to endure this kind of torture or they’ll kill your family. And no one pulls off the highway looking for a quick bite to eat and ends up in The French Laundry for a 3 hour meal.

If you are going to drop three or four hundred dollars on a meal you should have a very good idea of what you’re getting into and if you don’t, you probably have more money than sense.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. This guy was 2 hours late (through no fault of his own, but late nonetheless) for a very choreographed meal in a place that is always fully booked, and he had the nerve to be upset that restaurant didn’t bend over backward to give him the complete meal as it was intended to be served!?!?? Does he show up 80 minutes into a 90 minute movie and get mad at the movie house because they don’t restart the movie from the beginning? Does he show up at the Super Bowl during the 2 minute warning and demand they replay the first 58 minutes of the game because he was stuck in traffic? He didn’t hold up his end of the bargain and now he’s mad at the entire system.

I understand his point about some of these tasting menus being too long and containing too much food, but the last few I’ve been to (Rouge 24 and Westend Bistro) had 3 different size options for the number of dishes you received, (8, 16, 24 and 5, 7, 9 respectively). This allows the diner to decide the amount of food and the price you’re willing to spend.

The thing I like about tasting menus is you presumably (hopefully) get the best, freshest, most seasonal, highest quality food that the place is putting out. At least I hope that’s the case.

What I’d really love to do is to do what Anthony Bourdain always seems to do: go into a restaurant and say to the chef, “Feed me. Bring me whatever you want to serve and whatever you think is the best food you are putting out today. I don’t care if it’s beef, fish or mushroom stew, I just want the best stuff you have”. Since I can’t do that, I’ll opt for the tasting menu hoping that I end up with the best food the kitchen has to offer.

[Mark Slater]

What I’d really love to do is to do what Anthony Bourdain always seems to do: go into a restaurant and say to the chef, “Feed me. Bring me whatever you want to serve and whatever you think is the best food you are putting out today. I don’t care if it’s beef, fish or mushroom stew, I just want the best stuff you have”. Since I can’t do that, I’ll opt for the tasting menu hoping that I end up with the best food the kitchen has to offer.

Remember Bourdain's advice from Kitchen Confidential: never go out for brunch; never order fish on Monday.

[zoramargolis]

Remember Bourdain's advice from Kitchen Confidential: never go out for brunch; never order fish on Monday.

I thought it was never order mussels on Monday. But it pays to include the whole pantheon of oceanic proteins in that caveat.

[DonRocks]

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. This guy was 2 hours late (through no fault of his own, but late nonetheless) for a very choreographed meal in a place that is always fully booked, and he had the nerve to be upset that restaurant didn’t bend over backward to give him the complete meal as it was intended to be served!?!?? Does he show up 80 minutes into a 90 minute movie and get mad at the movie house because they don’t restart the movie from the beginning? Does he show up at the Super Bowl during the 2 minute warning and demand they replay the first 58 minutes of the game because he was stuck in traffic? He didn’t hold up his end of the bargain and now he’s mad at the entire system.

I agree. That's got "Entitled" written all over it.

This is a *great* article.

My own quote hopefully demonstrates that I don't "have it in" for Corby Kummer.

But as I'm thinking about this more, having read the article again, and as I've gotten Eric's perspective (*), I think it's not so much a great article as a good piece of propaganda. Earlier, I said that "I can count the number of restaurants in the DC area on two hands that force diners to have extended tasting menus, so this is not a widespread pestilence," but I think I can count the number of restaurants on one hand, and depending on your definition of "extended," maybe even one finger.

This article is arguably based on a theoretical problem that doesn't actually exist. It's well-written enough to have fooled me, after one quick read, into thinking it was important. But now I'm questioning that because I'm not even sure what it's about.

1) He's two hours late for Charlie Trotter's, and expects to be treated as if he isn't.

2) He apparently made up facts about The French Laundry meal to suit his needs.

3) He never went to El Bulli, but lambasts it anyway (it's incredible what he wrote here).

4) He did go to Noma, and appeared to love it, until four pointless words appear: "But neither was choice."

5) He slams Alinea, not for the food, but for taking what the market will bear in terms of price.

6) He slams Eleven Madison Park (but at least makes an effort to back that up with plenty of detail).

It's not until 2/3 of the way into page 3 when he addresses anything but the absolute top-tier restaurants in the United States - restaurants that many people build entire vacations around. Finally, he gets to what I perceive to be "the problem" - the sentence where he writes, "Young chefs everywhere are adopting the tasting menu as a way to show off and control costs at the same time—and to signify their ambitions." These two paragraphs resonate with me. But at what cost? He's pulling out "Stalin" and "tyranny" and taking some pretty big swings at some legitimately great chefs. I honestly searched to see if he mentioned Hitler (he didn't). And really, the problem with many "young chefs" isn't that they're doing tasting menus; it's that they're chefs to begin with, instead of being line cooks learning from a master - they don't want to pay their dues, and it shows in their product, tasting menu or not.

(*) If you go back and read the part about the Phyllis Richman dinner, after reading Eric's posts above, it really does look like Kummer rewrote history to fit into the article. I would love to hear his side of the story about this, but he does not look good here at all.

[johnb]

What I’d really love to do is to do what Anthony Bourdain always seems to do: go into a restaurant and say to the chef, “Feed me. Bring me whatever you want to serve and whatever you think is the best food you are putting out today. I don’t care if it’s beef, fish or mushroom stew, I just want the best stuff you have”. Since I can’t do that, I’ll opt for the tasting menu hoping that I end up with the best food the kitchen has to offer.

Why can't you do it? Just go ahead. Do it! Say it to the waiter; maybe the chef might even come out and have a word with you (as he/she certainly does for AB). Either way, just sit there until they bring it out, whatever it turns out to be. Then enjoy it. If it turns out badly, what have you lost?

It's not as if anyone has not ever eaten what the chef chooses, whether that be in the form of a tasting menu or just having the chef select the meal. We've all done that our whole lives. It's called "eat what your mama puts on your plate."

[Bart]

Good point, and I actually did that once. It was my wife's birthday a few years ago and I was on a Bourdain jag reading everything I could find by him, so I called Bibiana and actually explained that to the person on the phone and asked if we could have "whatever the chef felt like serving" or something like that. It ended up being a fantastic meal that covered apps, meat, fish, cheese, pasta, a salad type thing and dessert. Every dish was wonderful and I got to experience buratta for the first time, which was amazing. My write up of the meal is in the Bibiana thread. Just thinking about it makes me want to go back. Tonight.

[TedE]

I just caught about 5 minutes of Mr. Kummer on the Kojo Show today. I didn't get the whole interview, but it sounds like he is beating the same drum. I was laughing to myself as he described how awful it was to arrive 2 hours late to Trotter's and be offered only dessert after the rest of the table had already eaten their entire dinner. He even mentioned that the only reason he made the reservation was because the restaurant was closing and he wanted to see what the fuss was about; he even mentioned the reservation was hard to get and that they were booked solid until the closing date. Now instead of "Shit happens! I wish there were other ways to experience this chef's food." he seems to be taking a snafu of neither his nor the restaurant's making and laying the blame entirely on the restaurant! I wonder how he would have reacted as another party if told, "Sorry, we had a guest arrive quite late for their reservation, so we may not be able to seat you tonight while we recreate a dinner for this person while the rest of his party looks on".