7 ms·

The secretive life of a Michelin inspector

56 points by bootload 11y ago

song 11y ago
> There are 30 three-star restaurants in Japan, as of this writing, compared with 26 in France and 12 in the U.S. Michelin began rating restaurants in Japan around the same time the guide came to America. As a French guy who lived in Japan for some time, I've got a very simple explanation for why Japan has more Michelin stars than France. If you go to a normal average restaurant in France, the food will usually not be very good, they will serve dishes prepared with pre-made sauces from Metro, they won't serve anything amazing. There's a very big discrepancy in France between normal restaurants priced less than 20 euros per person for lunch without wine and the gourmet more expensive restaurants. People also go out to restaurants a lot less than in Japan so there are less restaurants in France. In Japan, Osaka has 16,000 restaurants. Tokyo has 55,000 restaurants. Paris only has 14,000. Even restaurants that are not very expensive (1000 yens lunches) in Japan tend to only use homemade ingredients. They don't use pre-made sauces. The average quality of normal restaurants is much higher and a lot of the Chefs at those restaurants are actually passionate about the food and try hard to improve their skills. So, it's simple, Japan is a country with at least twice the number of restaurants per population as France and with a much higher percentage of passionate chefs that want to improve their skills and are there for the love of food rather than for earning money. It's actually surprising that Japan still has so little Michelin stars. As for michelin stars, I actually trust the Gault et Millau guide a lot more in France, they don't care as much about the atmosphere and the service, they care about the food and ultimately that's the only that matters for me.
- ngoel36 11y ago
  Anecdotally, the Michelin restaurants in Japan optimize for much much more than just food. The most expensive meal I've ever had was at Kikunoi in Kyoto (3 Michelin stars). I was excited about this meal for MONTHS. And although I do love traditional Japanese food, the meal was - to be honest - worse than most Bib Gourmand meals I've had here in SF. Atmosphere and presentation - divine - but the food wasn't nearly as tasty as the 1000 yen bentos.
  - crdb 11y ago
    (time to stick out my ignorant amateur neck for chopping) I'm sorry if this feels like the wrong tone, but how familiar are you with Japanese aesthetics and philosophy? I am only slightly familiar, but my understanding is that kaiseki ryori is not about "tasty" but a form of philosophical statement by the chef (for example, seasonal touches referring to the impermanence of life), and also a means of linking with nature. For example, the rough, asymmetrical, and "used-looking" look of the tableware, in contrast to say the impeccable and ornate perfection of the Chinese equivalent, references wabi-sabi and is meant to both complement the seasonal and natural feel of the ingredients, and make you think about the bittersweet nature of ephemeral life. There might even be cultural references. In many cases you're supposed to get out still feeling slightly hungry. Each dish evokes a different feeling and the succession of feelings and the way in which they are executed are what a meal like Kikunoi is about. (dear Japanese readers please correct me) It's like "no" theatre (not kabuki!): a highly formalized, stylized art form where the audience is expected to be familiar with everything already and is appreciating only the "how" not the "what" of the play. A no performance uses archaic language modern Japanese audiences don't even understand, but all the attendees know the words already. It would feel tremendously boring to an outsider (guilty!), with not much visually happening, whilst your Japanese host gets excited about the masterly way in which bending the head a couple of degrees down has utterly changed the implied feeling of the actor. When I first travelled to Japan, I was frustrated by the lack of intensity present in, well, everything, from architecture to food (except fast food) and even fashion. My relatively frequent trips to Japan improved a lot after I took the time to read books to try and understand the local mindset, at least of Kamakura to Edo period Japan (when the warriors took over from the overly sophisticated aristocracy that ran the country from Kyoto in the Heian period). It is this refinement within the constraints of simplicity (with the tea ceremony the most extreme example) that makes Japanese arts so sophisticated. We sort of have it in the West too; Mozart is not impressive aurally in the way that, say, Rachmaninov or Liszt might be, but playing Mozart well (or something like Liszt's Pilgrimage Years) requires a lifetime of study and is appreciated for its subtlety and control and life experience more than the sheer block of sound and expressed ideas in the content.
    - nosuchthing 11y ago
- imjk 11y ago
  That's funny. Just a single anecdote, but the best meal my gf and I had while traveling through Europe was at a "commoner" pub at 2AM after the hotel concierge told me there's no real food I could find at that time.
jasondc 11y ago
> she explained that for the job the inspectors, on average, eat two restaurant meals a day almost every day of the week except weekends, at least 200 meals a year. They are on the road constantly. “It’s not that we’re trying to be secretive for its own sake,” she said, “but … we want to maintain the quality and integrity of the process.” Being an inspector isn't the easy job I thought it would be :)
gooseyard 11y ago
Criticism is the lowest form of art.
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  Does that still validate Yelp as art?
- hugh4 11y ago
  Then we should be happy that some people are willing to humble themselves to this "low" art form.
- crdb 11y ago
  I always think of Churchill's 'You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.' when I hear this comment. Critics also take a risk by staking out their opinion, which they know is fallible, subjective, and liable to attack. They take the risk because they value discussion and learning over the protection of their and the artist's egoes. It is a form of courage that should be praised, "man in the arena" notwithstanding. Moreover, in many industries (if not all), if the critics stay silent, only the PR firms are sounding, which sucks for the consumer who becomes drowned in noise and unable to engage with the art.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  I'm having a delightful time contrasting this to the Gamergate anger at "non-objective" criticism. Both of you hate critics, but for opposite reasons: you think criticism strives to be art, but fails; GG thinks criticism strives to be art, and they hate art.
FireBeyond 11y ago
There's very little in this article about the life of an inspector. It's all about the restaurants. (this is an 'editorialized' title)
- partisan 11y ago
  Agreed. There is not very much at all about the inspectors. It was a good read all the same.
  - bootload 11y ago
    Somewhere in the last 5 or more years, web articles started using summaries for titles. I wouldn't say editorialised, I'd say it's more a case of "Article has ridiculously long title" and try to shorten it before I post.
afarrell 11y ago
I am suddenly very curious about how quality control in tyre manufacturing works.
BashiBazouk 11y ago
It's interesting that high star restaurants are expected to not serve more common ingredients. I went to Manresa in Los Gatos once. Very good but I felt that I was being filled with bread (which was divine) between courses but would have preferred to see what they could do with chicken as a cheap filler instead. Now I have some idea why they would not use it as a filler dish. I also find that if a place like Oaxaca has no Michelin stared restaurants, the Michelin guide is limited to a kind of food and not necessarily the best food the world has to offer. Though I am probably overly partial to mole in it's various forms...
- enjo 11y ago
  In order to win a star, Michelin has to produce a guide for the area. There are only three cities in the United States that have a guide (I believe: San Francisco, Chicago, and New York). So you won't find a michelin starred restaurant in New Orleans for instance, which sort of undermines the prestige of the whole thing. There are many many great restaurants in the world that are not Michelin eligible, which is a real shame.
  - acheron 11y ago
    Las Vegas had one as well but it's been discontinued.

56 points by bootload 11y ago

song 11y ago

> There are 30 three-star restaurants in Japan, as of this writing, compared with 26 in France and 12 in the U.S. Michelin began rating restaurants in Japan around the same time the guide came to America. As a French guy who lived in Japan for some time, I've got a very simple explanation for why Japan has more Michelin stars than France. If you go to a normal average restaurant in France, the food will usually not be very good, they will serve dishes prepared with pre-made sauces from Metro, they won't serve anything amazing. There's a very big discrepancy in France between normal restaurants priced less than 20 euros per person for lunch without wine and the gourmet more expensive restaurants. People also go out to restaurants a lot less than in Japan so there are less restaurants in France. In Japan, Osaka has 16,000 restaurants. Tokyo has 55,000 restaurants. Paris only has 14,000. Even restaurants that are not very expensive (1000 yens lunches) in Japan tend to only use homemade ingredients. They don't use pre-made sauces. The average quality of normal restaurants is much higher and a lot of the Chefs at those restaurants are actually passionate about the food and try hard to improve their skills. So, it's simple, Japan is a country with at least twice the number of restaurants per population as France and with a much higher percentage of passionate chefs that want to improve their skills and are there for the love of food rather than for earning money. It's actually surprising that Japan still has so little Michelin stars. As for michelin stars, I actually trust the Gault et Millau guide a lot more in France, they don't care as much about the atmosphere and the service, they care about the food and ultimately that's the only that matters for me.

ngoel36 11y ago
Anecdotally, the Michelin restaurants in Japan optimize for much much more than just food. The most expensive meal I've ever had was at Kikunoi in Kyoto (3 Michelin stars). I was excited about this meal for MONTHS. And although I do love traditional Japanese food, the meal was - to be honest - worse than most Bib Gourmand meals I've had here in SF. Atmosphere and presentation - divine - but the food wasn't nearly as tasty as the 1000 yen bentos.
- crdb 11y ago
  (time to stick out my ignorant amateur neck for chopping) I'm sorry if this feels like the wrong tone, but how familiar are you with Japanese aesthetics and philosophy? I am only slightly familiar, but my understanding is that kaiseki ryori is not about "tasty" but a form of philosophical statement by the chef (for example, seasonal touches referring to the impermanence of life), and also a means of linking with nature. For example, the rough, asymmetrical, and "used-looking" look of the tableware, in contrast to say the impeccable and ornate perfection of the Chinese equivalent, references wabi-sabi and is meant to both complement the seasonal and natural feel of the ingredients, and make you think about the bittersweet nature of ephemeral life. There might even be cultural references. In many cases you're supposed to get out still feeling slightly hungry. Each dish evokes a different feeling and the succession of feelings and the way in which they are executed are what a meal like Kikunoi is about. (dear Japanese readers please correct me) It's like "no" theatre (not kabuki!): a highly formalized, stylized art form where the audience is expected to be familiar with everything already and is appreciating only the "how" not the "what" of the play. A no performance uses archaic language modern Japanese audiences don't even understand, but all the attendees know the words already. It would feel tremendously boring to an outsider (guilty!), with not much visually happening, whilst your Japanese host gets excited about the masterly way in which bending the head a couple of degrees down has utterly changed the implied feeling of the actor. When I first travelled to Japan, I was frustrated by the lack of intensity present in, well, everything, from architecture to food (except fast food) and even fashion. My relatively frequent trips to Japan improved a lot after I took the time to read books to try and understand the local mindset, at least of Kamakura to Edo period Japan (when the warriors took over from the overly sophisticated aristocracy that ran the country from Kyoto in the Heian period). It is this refinement within the constraints of simplicity (with the tea ceremony the most extreme example) that makes Japanese arts so sophisticated. We sort of have it in the West too; Mozart is not impressive aurally in the way that, say, Rachmaninov or Liszt might be, but playing Mozart well (or something like Liszt's Pilgrimage Years) requires a lifetime of study and is appreciated for its subtlety and control and life experience more than the sheer block of sound and expressed ideas in the content.
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
imjk 11y ago
That's funny. Just a single anecdote, but the best meal my gf and I had while traveling through Europe was at a "commoner" pub at 2AM after the hotel concierge told me there's no real food I could find at that time.

jasondc 11y ago

> she explained that for the job the inspectors, on average, eat two restaurant meals a day almost every day of the week except weekends, at least 200 meals a year. They are on the road constantly. “It’s not that we’re trying to be secretive for its own sake,” she said, “but … we want to maintain the quality and integrity of the process.” Being an inspector isn't the easy job I thought it would be :)

gooseyard 11y ago

Criticism is the lowest form of art.

nosuchthing 11y ago
Does that still validate Yelp as art?
hugh4 11y ago
Then we should be happy that some people are willing to humble themselves to this "low" art form.
crdb 11y ago
I always think of Churchill's 'You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.' when I hear this comment. Critics also take a risk by staking out their opinion, which they know is fallible, subjective, and liable to attack. They take the risk because they value discussion and learning over the protection of their and the artist's egoes. It is a form of courage that should be praised, "man in the arena" notwithstanding. Moreover, in many industries (if not all), if the critics stay silent, only the PR firms are sounding, which sucks for the consumer who becomes drowned in noise and unable to engage with the art.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
I'm having a delightful time contrasting this to the Gamergate anger at "non-objective" criticism. Both of you hate critics, but for opposite reasons: you think criticism strives to be art, but fails; GG thinks criticism strives to be art, and they hate art.

FireBeyond 11y ago

There's very little in this article about the life of an inspector. It's all about the restaurants. (this is an 'editorialized' title)

partisan 11y ago
Agreed. There is not very much at all about the inspectors. It was a good read all the same.
- bootload 11y ago
  Somewhere in the last 5 or more years, web articles started using summaries for titles. I wouldn't say editorialised, I'd say it's more a case of "Article has ridiculously long title" and try to shorten it before I post.

afarrell 11y ago

I am suddenly very curious about how quality control in tyre manufacturing works.

BashiBazouk 11y ago

It's interesting that high star restaurants are expected to not serve more common ingredients. I went to Manresa in Los Gatos once. Very good but I felt that I was being filled with bread (which was divine) between courses but would have preferred to see what they could do with chicken as a cheap filler instead. Now I have some idea why they would not use it as a filler dish. I also find that if a place like Oaxaca has no Michelin stared restaurants, the Michelin guide is limited to a kind of food and not necessarily the best food the world has to offer. Though I am probably overly partial to mole in it's various forms...

enjo 11y ago
In order to win a star, Michelin has to produce a guide for the area. There are only three cities in the United States that have a guide (I believe: San Francisco, Chicago, and New York). So you won't find a michelin starred restaurant in New Orleans for instance, which sort of undermines the prestige of the whole thing. There are many many great restaurants in the world that are not Michelin eligible, which is a real shame.
- acheron 11y ago
  Las Vegas had one as well but it's been discontinued.