Padma's back, bitches!

[foodguy]

Originally Posted by gdl203

I think I would most enjoy a dinner prepared by Michael, out of these 3. He goes an extra length to think about playful or unexpected pairings of foods or applications of techniques - but without going Wylie Dufresne on us. i.e. everyone seems to say consistently that his food is excellent, not only creative. I think I could have Kevin's "honest, simple" food at a dozen restaurants in NYC while I would not find Michael's food at many places - maybe EMP, Corton, Per Se, these kinds of places that try to offer a different dining experience. While obviously cultivating a cocky image, I really like his summary of the difference between his cuisine and Kevin : "Kevin's food is what I cook on my days off"

i think it may be the difference between where would you like to eat once a week and where would you like to eat once a month. Novelty is great, in its place, but flavor is what keeps people coming back. personally, i thought his summary was pure cocky chef bastard (note: do not know the guy, just going by the tv show, which is dangerous). but i think there is a real problem today with chefs who confuse advanced technique with cooking ability. the mark of a real master is being able to have both. also thought it was interesting that the bratty voltaggio (keep getting them confused), said that that challenge made him re-think his approach to ingredients ... of course, that might have just been a crumb thrown to the NorCal folks.

 

[gdl203]

All fair points. I said I would most enjoy "a dinner prepared by Michael, out of these 3", not a weekly dinner. If I was asked to pick one to cook for me for one dinner, I'd say Michael - it's personal and based purely on the fact that I like his combination of flavors and wit/creativity on the plate, something I can't find a lot of around me. I asked my wife the same question and she said Kevin.

 

[Manton]

I see what you mean, Greg. Michael seemed like the "best" to me as well, but that is without tasting the food. Kevin must be doing something right because he impressed the hell out of all them over and over.

I miss Jen.

 

[kwilkinson]

Why did you like Jen? I've only seen two episodes, but IMO, she was only an adequate cook, she was annoying to listen to, and every 5 seconds she would wrinkle her face up and make a very odd look.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Manton

I see what you mean, Greg. Michael seemed like the "best" to me as well, but that is without tasting the food. Kevin must be doing something right because he impressed the hell out of all them over and over.


Yep, if I've drawn one conclusion from this season, it's that at the end of the day, nothing matters more than how the food tastes. It doesn't matter what advanced techniques you used, it doesn't matter what creative flavor combinations you put together, it doesn't matter how nicely you presented it, if it doesn't taste better than the other guy's food, you're going to lose.

I see gdl's point about wanting Michael to cook dinner for you, but, in the restaurant business, a guy who gets people in the door repeatedly is going to do better than the guy who gets them in the door once because he's a novelty, but they could find better tasting food somewhere else. Eventually the novelty wears off and it might have worn off on the judges.

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by Manton

I see what you mean, Greg. Michael seemed like the "best" to me as well, but that is without tasting the food. Kevin must be doing something right because he impressed the hell out of all them over and over.
Yes, I suspect Kevin cooks consistently good food. But I also think that the judges, and in particular Colichio, have a bias towards "simple, honest" food. I mean that's Colichio's trademark and his primary marketing tool (see Diet Coke commercials) so it's important for his image to continue to promote such cuisine. Not to mention that it's a well known fact that people tend to hire/select people that are like them.

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by odoreater

I see gdl's point about wanting Michael to cook dinner for you, but, in the restaurant business, a guy who gets people in the door repeatedly is going to do better than the guy who gets them in the door once because he's a novelty, but they could find better tasting food somewhere else. Eventually the novelty wears off and it might have worn off on the judges.
I don't see why the two would be mutually exclusive. The highest rated and priced restaurants in NYC for example are good example of a well executed but sophisticated cuisine, and they are consistently booked up - few of them are haute barnyard, except maybe for Barber's stuff and still I think that's more refined than Kevin's fare.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by gdl203

I don't see why the two would be mutually exclusive. The highest rated and priced restaurants in NYC for example are good example of a well executed but sophisticated cuisine, and they are consistently booked up - few of them are haute barnyard, except maybe for Barber's stuff and still I think that's more refined than Kevin's fare.

Highest rated and priced doesn't necessarily mean most profitable though, right? I guess how much money someone makes might be a poor measure of success, but I think it would be easier for a Kevin to make a lot of money in the restaurant business than for a Michael.

Anyway, there's no point to this argument. Different strokes and all that, and none of us have tasted the food to know how much better one guy's food might actually be than the other guy's.

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Highest rated and priced doesn't necessarily mean most profitable though, right? I guess how much money someone makes might be a poor measure of success, but I think it would be easier for a Kevin to make a lot of money in the restaurant business than for a Michael.
No you're right it doesn't. I didn't realize by "doing better", you meant being more profitable. I was thinking of successful chefs that are highly rated and respected and whose restaurants are always booked up. They may not be the most profitable ones.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by gdl203

No you're right it doesn't. I didn't realize by "doing better", you meant being more profitable. I was thinking of successful chefs that are highly rated and respected and whose restaurants are always booked up. They may not be the most profitable ones.

Yeah, agreed, that's why I said that how much money someone makes might not be the best measure of success. Sometimes being able to just survive while "doing your thing" is a better measure of success than actually making a lot of money.

 

[Roikins]

I will say that having had both Bryan and Michael's food, I'd pick Bryan if choosing between the two. In my experience, Bryan is better able to balance a menu between classic and modern techniques. Michael seems to be much more focused on using modern prep and mo-gas in a majority of his dishes, but this might be a product of him trying to provide diners courses he thinks they're expecting based on his TC appearance.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Why did you like Jen? I've only seen two episodes, but IMO, she was only an adequate cook, she was annoying to listen to, and every 5 seconds she would wrinkle her face up and make a very odd look.

Maybe that was it. Also, at the beginning she came off as very arrogant and tough, and then when things started to get hard she would get all weepy. I guess I enjoyed her character arc. She also seemed to be very good-hearted underneath it all.

I think she was a very good cook, also, but she had a very bad streak in the middle. She deserved to be in the final four, even if she was not as good as the other three. A just outcome, I think.

 

[Roikins]

Originally Posted by Manton

Maybe that was it. Also, at the beginning she came off as very arrogant and tough, and then when things started to get hard she would get all weepy. I guess I enjoyed her character arc. She also seemed to be very good-hearted underneath it all.

I think she was a very good cook, also, but she had a very bad streak in the middle. She deserved to be in the final four, even if she was not as good as the other three. A just outcome, I think.

I still think she looks a bit like Tanya Harding.

 

[foodguy]

this is not to name-drop or anything, but years ago i was talking to victor hazan (mr. marcella) about the difference between american restaurants (in the early 90s) and italian ones (in the early 90s ... both have changed since). he had an amazing comment: that american chefs cook to surprise while italian chefs cook to reassure ... he said that was why in italy there are restaurants that are famous for only one or two dishes and people go back to them over and over to get those dishes, while in the US, that rarely happens. the problem with surprising people with a dish is that you can only do it once ... then you need to think up something new.
In that context, I'd say Kevin is an Italian chef, Michael is an American chef and Bryan (only from what i've seen on the show) is someplace in between.
on a less elevated topic, i'm a jen fan, though i can't really say why ... she was oddly parodoxical, at first a hard-ass, then a whimp, but she always seemed to have a sparkle. maybe it was just good lighting.

 

[gdl203]

That's interesting - I would have said that Michael takes his cues from successful contemporary French cuisine more than American.