From Kent in the comments thread under our picture of Michael Voltaggio came this insightful, experienced observation about the Los Angeles restaurant scene:
Every (new) restaurant is the same. I haven’t been to a restaurant opening in over a year that didn’t make me think “I had this last week at Animal, Sotto, Freddy Smalls, Tar & Roses, Tasting Kitchen, etc…” Look at Ink.’s opening menu. Everything on it was a copy of someone else’s food. Top Chef is turning the restaurant scene into the NBA. A bunch of kids with some talent but not ready yet.
If it means a city full of eateries with nothing over $30 on the menu, dishes filled with ingredients that are far too time consuming to cook at home, and kitchens staffed by people who take enough pride in their profession to at least break out of the hack steak house/comfort-food slop we’ve been shoveled for the last 5 years, then bring on the L.A. dining scene post-haste!
Hm, as one covering the LA food scene let me respond thoughtfully and maturely: You’re a moron, sir.
Food has ALWAYS been trendy, the only difference is you weren’t paying attention. Food isn’t trendy because chefs are unoriginal, but because restaurants need to offer, at least to some extent, dishes with which their diners will be familiar. It’s a tricky balance.
Top Chef vets still can’t be painted with one brush, and if the LA scene seems samey to you, why don’t you try going to an eatery in the hundreds of square miles of LA county a little bit farther from your West Hollywood focal point. Food is almost ridiculously diverse here. Some is better than other, but it will always be that way.
Trendy?
You read a review.You go. Take in the atmosphere, and think it’s cool
Food starts coming: “Whoa!, this could be an experience”
Half way through the meal: “it’s good, but would you want to come back”
End of the meal
Next day you don’t remember what you ate.
Most chefs today do not really have much background. They grew up on junk food and there tastes often were formed in a Culinary Academy.
They “write” recopies like it was writing software for a computer program
In 5,10,20.50 years from now, none of this will remain or matter, but we will still be eating Coq au Vin. Bucatini all”Amatriciana, Tonkotsu Ramen ect….
As the lead critic of Top Chef on eGullet, (and a topic read by over 20,000 members), I know a few things after nine years of reviews. Let’s get our priorities straight up front. Top Chef is first and foremost entertainment. To link the Arbitron ratings success of a show on Bravo to the dining scene in LA is a stretch at best.
Top Chef has had both a negative and a positive effect on the profession of the Chef. But that’s another broad statement that doesn’t do justice to the topic.
Some say the former, i.e. negative, far outweighs the positive. If Marcel, (aka the man with the poodle coif above), had not wrestled with his fellow Cheftestants on Top Chef he wouldn’t be so infamous today. On the other hand, one can scroll through the list of former Top Chefs and see any number that have gone on to both business and critical success. If just one young person watched Top Chef over the past nine years and decided to go to culinary school and ended up in the kitchens at Robuchon in Las Vegas, (which has happened), then that’s a good thing in my book.
Yes, there is a terrible amount of copykat recipes displayed on Top Chef. Many of the presentations are dreadful rip-offs of trendy dishes found on any number of fine dining menus across the country. And then there is the gang of “avant-garde” that seems to show up on Top Chef. This year it was that poor fellow Chris Jones, whose attempts this season at “molecular gastronomy” ended up with what he called a “cigar” but looked like a turd that came out of my bulldog. A bunch of kids with talent but not ready yet? Yes, in some cases. Yet as Mr. Gladstone so accurately says above, “Top Chefs can’t be painted with one brush.” (Nor can the LA dining scene).
And then we have Paul. Paul Qui, this year’s “Top Chef.” Paul crafted cold soups and dishes of Brussels sprouts. Creative and unique dishes that were beautiful in their simplicity. Young, talented, ready for prime-time, the NBA, whatever you want to call it. Paul stood out for not being like everyone else. Paul stood as the Top Chef because he didn’t present dishes that are on every menu on every street corner. And so, in the end, if that’s all Top Chef leaves us with, one good cook, that’s enough.
Mr. Gladstone. I read your writings. I respect you for your insight and musings. My comment was from a thread directly pointed at young talent, and their trend of being copy cats. With young, Top Chef talent comes grandiose openings praised by all. These typically happen in a handful of neighborhoods. I do not live in West Hollywood, nor enjoy coming close to it, other than wanting to eat at the “hot, new” restaurants opening in that neighborhood. As you stated, the hundreds of square miles of food in LA is much more my style, and (as we both can agree) better food. The diversity of the LA food scene is why I consider myself lucky to live here. I understand your bitterness towards me, but the context of the statement (if researched before rushing to the keyboard) does make sense.
Yes, there are the few Lebron James and Dwight Howards of the Top Chef world that do indeed know how to cook and open a good/sustainable restaurant, but there are many more Kwame Browns and Darko Miliceks (sp?) out there.
Everyone reading loves what Top Chef has brought to our industry, as do I. But, as critics (as everyone responding has claimed), the obvious critique of the aforementioned restaurants is obvious, and that’s really all I was saying.
It wasn’t hating, just honest feedback from a guy who eats out a lot, and
gets excited about food. That’s all.
Why does Marcel and that statue picture to the right look like Robert Pattinson from the Twilight movies?
I thought for a second John C was telling us he was on Team Edward or something.