FWIW, the Gault Millau is imho vastly preferable to the Guide Michelin. Cares more about food quality than decor, and is actually reliable on its lower spectrum (< 1 star Guide Michelin recommendations are worthless, and 1 star is already very expensive; if Gault Millau recommends something, then it is always good; and the ratings and descriptions are relatively meaningful).
It's pretty tough to get that third star; by simply changing the decor, laying off some staff, or closing the cloakroom the third star would go.
But this does remind me of a restaurant in Palo Alto (chef trained in a 3-star restaurant in Burgundy) whose owner asks people to leave bad yelp reviews. Basically the customer base is almost entirely regulars and that's enough to make it a good business. They don't want so much business that the regulars couldn't get a table.
I used to think restaurant guides were invented in America, with the publishing by a salesman named Duncan Hines of his favorite stops across the country. But his guide started with a Christmas card list in 1935, while the Michelin guide goes back to 1900!
Had a ~20 minute conversation about this yesterday.
I find it fascinating to ask what makes food taste good. We agreed it was a combination of texture, flavor(pairings, aromas, and basic taste like salt, sweet, acid, etc..), atmosphere/presentation.
What the conversation boiled down-to- are foods that use 'all the cheat codes', ie, adding sugar, salts, fats, acid; going to taste better than foods that are traditional?
I contest that American-Italian will taste better than Italian because it wins the Pepsi Taste Challenge. Where tradition doesnt allow you to use sugar in traditional Italian culture, American food has no rules.
From a biological point of view, the food with a sugar in it will win a comparison.
The goal I was looking to understand- If I can make American Thai Food that causes friends to eat until they have a stomach ache, does that beat traditional thai food that tastes good, but not addicting?
> What the conversation boiled down-to- are foods that use 'all the cheat codes', ie, adding sugar, salts, fats, acid; going to taste better than foods that are traditional?
This is one of those unquantifiable sentiments that will just devolve into one person's personal biases against another's. What counts as a "cheat code"? What is the definition of "traditional"? In fact, the rest of your post belies a bias against American food and American interpretations of non-American food.
In fact, three of your "cheat codes" (salt, fat, and acid) are fundamental elements of cooking world-wide. The differences are in how those elements are brought, figuratively and literally, to the table by various cultures.
>I contest that American-Italian will taste better than Italian because it wins the Pepsi Taste Challenge. Where tradition doesnt allow you to use sugar in traditional Italian culture, American food has no rules.
Yeah, thanks god the Michelin guide is European...
No offense but if you can say that ‘American Italian vs Italian’ comment with a straight face you need to travel more. Food is a lot more complex than how you’re describing it. Yes, you can have good Italian food anywhere in the world (my favorite is Lenzi, which is in Bangkok) but there’s no comparison to eating good Italian food in, say, Florence. I’m typing this looking at the river Arno. Eating Italian food here is transcendent.
[+] [-] leiroigh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasta|7 years ago|reply
Unfortunately Michelin doesn't want to drop them.
[+] [-] gumby|7 years ago|reply
But this does remind me of a restaurant in Palo Alto (chef trained in a 3-star restaurant in Burgundy) whose owner asks people to leave bad yelp reviews. Basically the customer base is almost entirely regulars and that's enough to make it a good business. They don't want so much business that the regulars couldn't get a table.
[+] [-] nanaboo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robertAngst|7 years ago|reply
I find it fascinating to ask what makes food taste good. We agreed it was a combination of texture, flavor(pairings, aromas, and basic taste like salt, sweet, acid, etc..), atmosphere/presentation.
What the conversation boiled down-to- are foods that use 'all the cheat codes', ie, adding sugar, salts, fats, acid; going to taste better than foods that are traditional?
I contest that American-Italian will taste better than Italian because it wins the Pepsi Taste Challenge. Where tradition doesnt allow you to use sugar in traditional Italian culture, American food has no rules.
From a biological point of view, the food with a sugar in it will win a comparison.
The goal I was looking to understand- If I can make American Thai Food that causes friends to eat until they have a stomach ache, does that beat traditional thai food that tastes good, but not addicting?
[+] [-] maxerickson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, if you eat a rather bland diet you start noticing many starches taste sweet as your saliva breaks them down.
[+] [-] vonmoltke|7 years ago|reply
This is one of those unquantifiable sentiments that will just devolve into one person's personal biases against another's. What counts as a "cheat code"? What is the definition of "traditional"? In fact, the rest of your post belies a bias against American food and American interpretations of non-American food.
In fact, three of your "cheat codes" (salt, fat, and acid) are fundamental elements of cooking world-wide. The differences are in how those elements are brought, figuratively and literally, to the table by various cultures.
[+] [-] coldtea|7 years ago|reply
Yeah, thanks god the Michelin guide is European...
[+] [-] temp0876456|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empath75|7 years ago|reply
Thai food has all kinds of influences and changes as much as American food.