Wylie Dufresne, the chef-owner of the highly acclaimed restaurant WD-50, and I, have sort of a love/hate relationship. How our relationship came to be that way is rather complicated. You see I have a love/hate relationship with his food, and as a result he is happy to return the favor. Hence the name of this article. Because the truth is the restaurant hasn't gone anywhere and the comeback I am referring to in the title of this article is only in the context of the way I feel about Wylie food
How things got this way needs to be explained. You see Wylie is a member of the OA Food Discussion forum (under an assumed name that is) and he gets to read everything I, and the other members of the forum, write about the restaurant. If one were to read the thread on WD-50 on the site, what you would find is a treachorous roller coaster of highs and lows that have been broken up into three basic categories. Those who love the food all of the time, those who dislike it it most of the time, and those who go back and forth depending on where Wylie's cuisine happens to be at the moment. Your's truly happens to fall into category three and that's the source of our contention.
This culinary pas-de-deux has been going on for a couple of years now. In reality it began when Wylie took what I thought were his two best dishes – bay scallops with a yogurt and chorizo cream and cod with smoked mashed potatoes, honshumeji mushrooms and red pepper oil –off of the menu, telling me that "two years is long enough." I tried to reason with him because not only were those two dishes among my favorites, but from a personal perpective, I find the lack of culinary continuity in modern cuisine troubling. I mean that cod dish is so good and you can't eat it any longer. Imagine if you could no longer eat Alain Passard's Arpege egg or the Troisgros family refused to serve their famous salmon and sorrel dish? Or how about if Thomas Keller stopped serving Oysters and Pearls? You see while I'm for creativity as much as the next guy, there also exists the notion of classic dishes that need not be discarded in the name of progress.
Unfortunately it got worse. Because along with discarding the two dishes which defined one boundary of his cuisine, I felt that Wylie also abandoned the flavor profile that his cuisine was built around in favor of what Austin Powers might describe as, "dishes based on pairings of ingredients that were ridiculously close in flavor and then prepared in a way that accentuated their bitterness and off flavors." Or putting it in simple terms, food that many of us thought didn't taste very good. And it wasn't as if this was a new aspect to Wylie's cuisine – this side of his cuisine was always present since day one – but it seemed as if he had abandoned the fully flavored side of his cuisine in favor of the more difficult side.
The net result of this change was that I stopped going to the restaurant. Oh I tried going for a while, but I have to say I began enjoying my meals less and less. And it got to the point where Mrs. P - who had been a fan in the past - outright refused to go. As I am not someone who is ashamed to voice a complaint, I began beating a steady drum on the OA forum criticizing Wylie's food. This did not put me in good standing with Wylie when we happened to run into each other. Once we were both at Ssam Bar at the same time and Mrs. P and I stopped by to say hello on our way out. I can't remember what he said to us but after we left Mrs. P turned to me and said, "well he's unhappy with you isn't he." Then this past spring we were walking on Clinton Street one afternoon and we ran into Wylie and he said "I'm surprised to see you guys all the way down here" which was a semi-snide reference that was supposed to imply that people who lived in our Upper East Side neighborhood didn't like that downtown food.
The chill in our relationship began to thaw when I included the WD-50 in my Search For the Perfect Meal evening. During that meal, Wylie came to visit our table (he usually makes people go to the kitchen) and while we were chatting he flat out told me I needed to come back and have a full meal. I agreed with him and, despite my intentions of returning it wasn't until I got an email from my friend, John Ferejohn, distinguished professor of political science at Stanford and NYU Law School, and someone who has managed to eat in most of the good restaurants in the U.S. and Europe, invited me to dinner there a week ago Friday, that I made good on my promise to return.
Our meal started with a delicious amuse of sweetbread, fennel and Earl Grey peanut butter powder. The quality of the sweetbread was superb and we all commented how long the flavor lingered. Then popcorn soup, shrimp, jicama and tamarind which was right up my alley. If I might digress a bit, in this day and age of tasting menus composed of small plates (the New York Times ran a piece on this phenomenon last week,) we tend to overlook the dishes that deserve that I will describe as deserving entree size attention in the context of a 3 course meal. In this instance, you can take this thick, luscious soup that is loaded with the flavor of corn and serve it in a larger bowl with various types of shellfish to make a stew out of it. If only... Then what has become a signature of the restaurant, the knot foie which is foie gras mixed with agar agar and turned into a ribbon which is coated with crispy rice puffs and then tied into a knot. Very good but in hindsight, ultimately more of a parlor trick than serious cuisine. Then hamachi tartar with sea beans, sake lees tahini and grapefruit shallot. This was fine but the most ordinary of all of the dishes we had during the evening.
A scallop, sliced thin and wrapped around a quail egg like it was a ravioli paper, and served with purple cabbage and okra was terrific. It reminded me of Wesley Genovart's potato and quali egg amuse (Wylie, Wesley, hmmm) but this was at least two notches better. Like the corn soup, this was another dish I would have enjoyed a larger portion of. Then the others had what Wylie calls "Eggs Benedict" and which they were raving about, while I had the bone marrow, chestnuts, tonburi and pickled honshumeji mushrooms which was good but not among my favorites that evening.
Call me a traditionalist but the turbot with barbecued lentils, cauliflower and persimmon was a stunning dish featuring superb ingredients that were cooked in a manner that was both modern and perfect. Then, delicious crispy lamb belly that was sliced and prepared ala bacon and served with black chickpea and cherried cucumber. Our menu was finished at that point but I requested an additional savory course and the kitchen complied with a wonderful dish of pork belly with sunchokes, ancho-pineapple and caper emulision.
Alex Stupak then wowed us with some terrific desserts including a dish of yogurt, raisin and spiced sorbet, grapefruit custard with elderflower, blueberry and basis, soft white chocolate, potato. malt and white beer ice fcream, and a sweet potato pie. We didn't drink badly either with a terrific 1988 Von Schubert Herrenweg Auslese, a 1996 Raveneau Chablis Mont Mains which was off the charts delicious, 1976 Lopez de Heredia Bosconia which was good but didn't stand up to the other wines. and a 1976 Jean Gros Clos Vougeot which started out soft but ended up as gangbusters.
So WD-50 is back on track - at least from this diner's perspective -as Wylie has really ramped up the intensity of the flavors. And just to show you I'm not the only one who feels that way about it, after the first few courses, three of the four people at my table commented on how the flavor profile was intensified over past visits. It's a good thing as it not only does it give me one more place to put in my NYC dining rotation, but Mrs P and I will now be spared the occasional snide comment if we happen to run into you know who while we're doing our thing around town. Recommended ++
* I am changing the rating system on this site so that it conforms with the rating system I am using on the Opinionated About Dining Surveys. While the three restaurants in this article do not appear on the current survey, they will appear in our Moderate and Inexpensive Dining Survey which will launch next year. Here is an explanation of our ratings:
Fine Dining Restaurants
Must Go - A restaurant worth planning a trip around
Recommended +++ - Important restaurants to dine at when visiting a region
Recommended ++ - Top local choices
Recommended + - Recommended in its location
Acceptable - The best of the rest
Can't Recommend
Moderate & Inexpensive Dining
Unique - Unique in its category and worth going out of your way for.
Recommended - Recommended over other restaurants in the category
Acceptable - The best of the rest
Can't Recommend
Our fine fining survey is currently ongoing and we invite you to participate. Just click on the link and go to the survey home page and follow the links to register. The survey covers more than 1,500 of the best restaurants in North America & Europe. Also when you participate, you can earn rating rewards points which you can redeem for discount coupons to a select group of food and beverage retailers. Click on the link for more information about registering and our reward program.
Hi Steve,
thanks for such a detailed review. Maybe i was not lucky that night, but my dinner in WD-50 recently was very disappointing http://www.luxeat.com/my_weblog/2007/12/wd50--the-prize.html ... Maybe the dishes were creative, but nothing was delicious... I agree that cooking is art and even science(and i am the first in line for expermental cuisine), but ultimately it has to taste good.
Anyway, i am glad that you enjoyed it!!!
Best
Aiste
Posted by: Luxeat | December 12, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Hey Aiste maybe you need to eat there with me next time :)
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki | December 13, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Steve,
While I agree with keeping a dish or dishes that are classics. I also understand getting tired of doing a dish. After a while, you just get bored with looking at it and, you reach a point where it's just time to go! from a chef's point of view.
Posted by: chef4cook | December 14, 2007 at 11:43 AM
You should tell that to Heston Blumenthal.
Look I understand that chefs want to be creative and they don't want to stand still. But restaurants are service businesses that depend on repeat customers. And the simple fact of the matter is that if there were greater continuity to the menu at restaurants like WD-50 or Alinea, I would enjoy myself more so I would return on a more frequent basis. Besides as a matter of logic, the entire approach of the discardable doesn't make sense because it argues against a dish being great enough to preserve in the first place.
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki | December 14, 2007 at 01:26 PM
:)
Aiste
Posted by: Luxeat | December 16, 2007 at 05:20 AM
Tell me about it. Unfortunately it is difficult to separate a Chef who builds his entire reputation (and is lauded for it) on being at the very cutting edge of cuisine development to then stop once he finds a dish that customers respond to.
What Steve isn't clarifying perhaps is that a dish doesn't stop evolving once its on then menu (Heston DEFINITELY knows all about this!). In many resepcts with Chefs like Wylie, keeping a dish on the menu and playing with it is likely to yield even greater results.
Again however, for Chefs like Wylie whose motivation comes from the thrill of something new - this might not be enough.
One other problem with this constant tinkering is the effect it has on the kitchen. With no disrespect intended to the rest of the kitchen at WD or any other avant-garde restaurant it is often the Head Chef who is the creative mind and developer of this type of food. Getting the kitchen to execute your 'wild idea' is fine but (in my personal experience) takes the rest of the brigade a little longer to get to grips with. There is two losers in this - the customers who dine before the new dishes are bedded in and then of course the restaurant when the negative comments start to appear online.
Its not the only reason but i can tell you it is one reason why the opinions of a meal at a restaurant like WD50 can range from being inspired to horrified.
What needs to happen is for Chefs like Dufresne, Cantu, Achatz, Mendes, Rogan, Brock, Bains et al to make the link between themselves and the classics like Robuchon, Ducasse, Passard and Tros Gros. Each of the former is 'legendary' for one thing or another be it mash, vegetables, a sauce or whatever and the one thing a diner can be almost guaranteed when eating there is not innovation but a 1st class meal - ultimately the thing that will make your diner feel it was value for money.
Whilst innovation is great nobody feels good about paying $150+ for being someones guinea pig. Modern chefs need to find a way to keep their creativity and constant innovation whilst at the same time continuously raise their own benchmark with regards to consistency. This is something that very few have so far achieved (Blumenthal, Gagnaire, and maybe even Aduriz) but that given more time i am sure some of those names listed above will join them
Posted by: Phil Mossop | December 17, 2007 at 08:35 AM
Thanks Phil (for those who do not know Phil, he is the owner of the London restaurant Bacchus and employs Nuno Mendes as his chef.)
As you say, the tension is between artistic endeavor and customer satisfaction. I think the chefs who are not willing to ackowledge that customer satisfaction is an important part of the mix, are throwing away something that is valuable to their long term reputation. And it is done in the name of what - making people eat something they would rather eat less than the dishes that have been discarded? That strategy might work for other arts and crafts. For example, nobody expects painters, composers, playwrights etc. to be stagnant and when you go see new works you do not want a rehash of something you have already experienced. But cuisine is different from the perspective that while you might be interested in a new Harold Pinter play, his earlier work is performed on a regular basis and theater-goers have access to it. In this instance, when Wylie's cod dish disappeared from his menu, the net effect of his decision means that diners lost access to one of the best dishes created in contemporary cuisine. That seems an awfuly high price to pay in the name of culinary progress.
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki | December 19, 2007 at 08:17 AM
being a chef i understand both sides of the story and i cook a lot of art-science inspired cuisine but the only thing i notice about a lot of the experimental restaurants (not all of them, just a few) is the lack of balance in a sense of balancing out the way your customers may feel about a dish(es), if you make a signature dish then take it off it seems as though there is no more progression to it, but the whole idea behind this style of cooking is to try and see what each ingredient is capable of, why not keep the signature flavor profile and start tweaking it make it better or make new textures with that same flavor profile, or try to enhance or tweak the same flavor profile? this would seem to be a point where you could strike a balance with a customer and keep them happy, everyone loves that comfortable feeling of looking foward to something familiar and a lot of people love the feeling of something new, and this is something that these places forget and where the balance is lost (in my opinion). i understand the artistic side seems to be taking over a lot but if you are going to have some sweet new technique and it doesn't enhance anything on the plate or it actually lacks flavor/texture for a cool shape then why put it on the plate to begin with? and if you do want to experiment with some sweet new technique at least offer your "solid" dishes to make up for what doesn't work or what is still an idea that needs to be expanded upon. Now there are people pouring out of the culinary schools like cattle who mimick this new style and have no real foundation in real cooking and they think because these other restaurants are doing all this new experimenting they need to be too. i have talked with a lot of people outside of the dining scene and i ask them what they hear about this new cuisine and a lot of them think its "foams" and "wierd stuff" and the problem is that for a lot of people it is just foams! they serve all this shit with no substance, the whole idea of a foam or air is to act like a seasoning or scent, like for instance you make a yuzu kosho air go with a nice sized portion of venison loin that has been cooked properly, the job of the air is to enhance or season the venison, but instead there are "chefs" who would rather give you a tiny ass cube of venison and a bowl of yuzu kosho air, then the dish becomes a gimmick, and thats what a lot of the cuisine seems like right now is gimmick, how many textures of foam and gels can i fit on one plate, while making 35 different powders to scatter around it while the substance is a complete afterthought. (sorry i am getting worked up) this is the shit that is going to sink this idea of expressing yourself, its almost like good bands making great music then 16 yr olds come rip off there style and turn it into shit that sells for a couple years then people say "why and how the fuck did i ever listen to that, i need to torch these cds and never speak of this again" right now i feel as though whatever it's called nowadays to the ones who exploit it "molecular gastronomy" is like the early 90's grunge scene, everyone thought grunge was cool and wore these ugly ass flannels but it just died one day and people look back and laugh. i hope that is not the future of this style of cuisine, but i feel there needs to be a change for the future of this cuisine and strinking a real balance between art/science/customers/comfort/uncomfort/ego (because art and science are not the only things in the equation) will be a good start.
Posted by: rot | January 27, 2008 at 05:33 PM