There has been a growing trend in my city (Toronto) for a number of years whereby the best restaurants are slowly but surely getting rid of their a-la-carte menus in favor of pre-selected ‘tasting’ menus. Although a lot of these establishments remain terrific gourmet institutions, I suspect there must be significant fiscal benefits to forcing diners to eat precisely what the chef selects? Can anyone verify if tasting menus are indeed beneficial to the restaurant?
It is just an alternative business model. It doesn’t mean that they are greedy. They want to make money of course but the restaurant business is very competitive so it isn’t like they can gouge for very long.
Tasting menus let them fewer select high quality ingredients and focus on those rather than keeping lots of ingredients around for days waiting for someone to order from a larger menu. The benefits of tasting menus are that the meal like more of an experience and many people like submitting their normal tastes to what an expert chef puts together. It also means that their can be wine and beer that are tailored to the meal recommended and available.
Of course. By being able to specify, or at least limit, what is available to the merely peckish diner, the chef is better able to control his food order from the wholesaler. Less wasted food; more profit.
I think the idea of eating a meal that was carefully selected by a chef, with different ingredients that all go together, is something a lot of diners appreciate - and further, the type of restaurant liable to offer this sort of thing probably has a well-respected chef who they want to please. It’s not unknown for restaurant chefs to be prima donnas . . .
Cook’s perspective: Even with a varied menu, there are always certain items that are ordered far more often than others. And cooks and chefs can get damn tired of cooking the same things over and over, night after night after night. So this new model sounds like fun - keeps the chef from getting bored.
I always assumed tasting menus were a way for a chef to offer a full course meal using the freshest seasonal ingredients at a discounted price thanks to volume.
I think what we are seeing is two different dining paradigms. Some people dine out so that a chef will prepare what they want to eat. Others go out to eat what the chef wants to prepare.
I was lucky enough to get into Emeril’s “NOLA” restaurant in New Orleans on a pretty crowded night. We were offered one of four (maybe five) entrees, and the waitress recommended appetizers and desserts to go with each meal. It was clear that there was a “right” appetizer and dessert for each entree, but you were not under any obligation to order it that way. Three of our four ordered that way, and we were all impressed at how the tastes went together; our fourth was impressed with the individual dishes but didn’t get the synergy between appetizer and entree. When it came time for dessert, all four of us ordered the “right” sweets to follow our entrees. The waitress also explained that one of the five entrees was always a “test drive” for one of the sous chefs, who was placed in charge of designing the entree and delegating appetizer and dessert selections to two of his/her peers. You knew which dish was the test drive, so if you were there to eat Emeril’s genius (?!) you could skip the tester; however, most of the other dishes had been testers at some point, too.
As far as restaurant operation goes, they were able to serve a full dining room (maybe 100 people) so that everyone got their food quickly. They had purposely held about 8 seats in a non-reserved state, or else they would have been booked full all night. The line for these eight seats was at least 40 people long.
I would think that a restaurant should be interested to catering to the customer’s wishes rather than in keeping the chef from suffering boredom.
Sorry, interested in catering to…
Agreed. I’ve sampled a number of these in the B’more/DC area (they haven’t caught on in New Haven), and it’s just something else entirely. Try a bunch of different dishes, drink a couple bottles worth of wines, and stumble away sated and exhilarated after four hours. Sure it’s expensive as all-get-out, but it’s more than worth it.
Well, the way I look at it is that there are a lot of different restaurants catering to different tastes. In much the same way that I wouldn’t go to the Ford dealership to buy a new Chevrolet, I don’t go to a Mexican restaurant to get French cuisine. The Ford dealer shouldn’t need to keep new Chevys on the lot to cater to my desire for a Chevy, and a Mexican restaurant shouldn’t need to prepare French foods.
So when the chef is in charge of deciding what is to be served, he should be able to prepare what he or she is interested in serving. The chef shouldn’t have to keep fad foods like nachos and baby back ribs around just to please unimaginative people who expect to get those same things in every restaurant. It sounds like these “tasting” restaurants are trying to cater to a specific clientele: adventurous eaters.
If you’ve got a great chef, it’s in the restaurant’s interest to keep him or her. Tasting menus may be part of the balance between serving what the customers order and keeping a talented employee happy and productive.
I would disagree on the basis that large numbers of established restaurants are suddenly racing to ditch their menus rather an a select few restaurants offering an alternative, its quickly becoming the norm.
What the heck is this? A quick Google search brings up a couple of articles, but this is something I’ve never, ever heard of. I travel a lot, which consequently means eating out a lot, too. Is this a phenominon in trendy little kiddie spots? Or upscale, better-than-me spots? Any of the national chains gone this route yet so I can at least try it? (I only say national chains because what you say there applies here; my preference is typically to avoid chains.)
As a dedicated foodie, I’m aware that a really great chef knows much more than I do, and I’m willing to put myself in his or her hands and learn something I didn’t know before. It’s one of those things where the more you learn, you realize how much there is to learn and how little you actually know; so a diner with a specific set of rigid requirements is typically either massively knowledgeable or limited by ignorance. I recognize that I’m neither, so I’ll frequently take the chef’s word on how a meal should be prepared and enjoyed. YMMV.
I have to agree that calling a tasting menu the “norm” is totally outside my experience. I’ve never even seen this suggested at any of the highest end restaurants in the biggest cities.
Waiter, cite please!
Balthisar: I can only speak for Toronto, but I assume the trend is larger than just here. And this thread is not about ‘chain’ restraunts or anything of the sort, I’m strictly refering to creme-de-la-creme gourmet restraunts.
Exapno Mapcase: First cite I would bring your attention to is ‘The Fat Duck’, which is the 2005 top rated (cite) restraunt in the world, from my knowledge of the place, its representitive of the type of situation I’m refering to. Actually going down that list, I couldn’t find the menu for the 2nd best restraunt, but the best, the 3rd best, the French Laundry in California, also has only Tasting Menus! I think I’m onto something here :). Low and behold, #4 on the list, Tetsuya, a;sp only only has a tasting menu! (cite )
As for local restraunts, Toronto Life Magazine is widely considered the best judge for culinary matters in the city. To search their ratings, go here
Of the 14 Restaurants rated 4 Stars or Higher in the city,
9 offer only tasting menus.
- Senses -
- Eigensinn Farm -
- Splendido -
- Sushi Kaji -
- The Fifth
- Susur (arguably best in the city) -
- Via Allegro -
- Perigee -
Also of the remaining few,
Rain - Focuses on their tasting menu but allows other choices if you prefer.
Rundles - Ditto
…
So thats 11 out of 14 in my city.
The tasting menu fad has been sweeping across mid-high range restaurants for a few years now. It’s been mainly a way for less than stellar restaurants to put on pretensions of being great and a way to feed chefs egos. In truth, only the top 20 - 50 restaurants in America can really justify tasting menus only or daily tasting menus. Judicious use of a weekly or monthly tasting menu can be nice but very few chefs have the skill neccesary to really pull off one consistently.
Yah, this thread is actually the first I’ve heard of this style. I am of course familiar with chefs preparing a nightly special in addition to the regular menu, but haven’t, until today, head of the special being the whole menu.
<hijack>
When I own my own restaurant, I’m planning to take advantage of the hordes of people who erroneously believe that “special” means “bargain”. I’m going to post “specials” that are more expensive than the menu price, and I’m going to cater to senior citizens.
I shall be rich!
</hijack>
xiix, interesting about Toronto. However, as Shalmanese said, only the tiniest few restaurants appear to do this daily in the U.S. Perhaps we’re just too insane with fad diets and food avoidance to tolerate a chef’s dictation. Or maybe it’s just that you can’t tell an American what to do! [spits, waves flag]
Mostly I would think it’s too damn expensive even for high-end customers on a regular basis. The tasting menus I’ve seen, usually because wines are paired with each course, run 6-10 times the cost of a regular entrée. Even for foodies that’s a lot of money.