I know the July - October menu is no secret, but here is a preview from The Feast: http://www.thefeast.com/chicago/restaur ... 69284.html

Spending the year in California, I have made only half-hearted attempts to get tickets to the 1906 dinner at Next, but the extreme desire for tickets leads me to ask whether cuisine (and in particular, Next's cuisine) is music or art? Are the dishes performances or objects? In other words, is it appropriate that some other chef can take the recipes (the score) and produce something similar to the same dinner (just as Mahler at the New York Philharmonic will not sound the same as at the Rockford Community Orchestra). But no one expects that great works of music or theater or dance are only produced once. In contrast, we do not expect anyone but Rothko to paint Rothkos, even if there might be a large demand for paintings that look like Rothko (or Gilbert Stuarts by someone other than Stuart).

Would it be appropriate for others to take the Paris 1906 recipes (with appropriate compensation, as in the case of music or theater) and produce something that is the same show. (Indeed, even by some of the cooks or stages currently working at Next: perhaps as a pop-up, like a traveling show). Could Shakespeare only be produced by his company at the Globe Theater or can any number of clowns play Hamlet? Should the 1906 dinner become part of the culinary canon or a unique event?

In short, is cuisine a replicable performance or a set of unique objects.

GAF wrote:In short, is cuisine a replicable performance or a set of unique objects.

Yes.

Wasn't the whole point of Paris 1906 that it was, itself, a manner of replicated performance?

Right, but the question is whether someone other than Grant or Dave replicate the performance. Will it live after June 30 or will it only live in memory?

But doesn't the very existence of Paris 1906 answer the question? Or is the idea that such a thing would require an intervening period of time? Or are you speaking hyperspecifically about the exact preparations, courses, presentations etc.?

Dom,

I'm not sure that I understand your point. I mean whether another restaurant can gain access to the recipes (the script or score - as in theater or music) and put on a production of Paris 1906. As with Brahms or Pinter, the production will not be hyper-identical, but it is likely to be recognizably similar.

Can Paris 1906 be produced in New York, London, Rockford, or even in Chicago again by another restaurant team?

People have been replicating recipes since they've been written down. Why we have cookbooks or sheet music. Most likely, even before. A musical analogy would be a "cover" tune or standard. Gershwin, Escoffier, Coltrane, Achatz, Satie... same difference. Depends on the skill of who's interpreting it whether it lives on or crashes and burns.

Perhaps I'm the one not understanding your question.

What I mean to say is that the spirit of Next 1906 was, unless I'm mistaken, to be the replicated performance you suggest. It's perhaps a little less specific than somebody duplicating Next's Paris 1906 would be, since there's less information to go on. But my point is that if it's a given that Paris 1906 was a replicated performance, why would somebody recreating Paris 1906 at Next Restaurant in Chicago in 2011 be any different?

I guess I don't see what would distinguish Next's Paris 1906 from, like you say, a touring production or an homage done by another chef. It seems to me that whatever Next's Paris 1906 is, so is any attempt to recreate it.

(Unless you're asking the same question of Next's Paris 1906 itself?)

My question is institutional. Yes, Paris 1906 at Next is a replicated performance in which objects are presented to diners. My question is if another "company" (restaurant) wanted to put on that performance, could they do so - and should they do so. Or is the performance only a Dave/Grant/Nick performance. If I were in the restaurant biz in, say, LA, I would be very intrigued about doing Paris 1906 with the same dishes.

One of the interesting things about Next is that they went to a full performance model in their ticketing. As at the theater or concerthall, you buy a ticket in advance, and have no choice in what is performed. There are few changes because of dietary needs (don't play a C-sharp, please!). This stands in contrast to most restaurants. I decide which of the available objects I wish to purchase. (Restaurants like Alinea with tasting menus are somewhere in-between).

I think that it would be wonderful if other chefs put on productions of Paris 1906. Diners will still wish to go to the original (as with the Broadway stage), but other diners will have the privilege of tasting the recipes. Again, such a model pushes the envelope of what dining means.

Given that the recipes are available to everyone, I don't see why anyone couldn't replicate them, just as someone "covers" a song. If another artist were to cover the whole album, it would be up to the public to determine if it's a tribute; a creative interpretation of that artist's work; or a knock off. Personally, I'd be more inclined to think "rip off" if there's no personal spin put on it--much the same way that Achatz and Berens put their own spin on what were otherwise faithful recreations of Escoffier's work.

I think that if another restaurant put on Paris 1906, the range of possible outcomes would be mostly negative. First, I think it would be viewed as a very derivative act. The best case is that you do it as well or better than Next (if that's even measurable) and all you're doing is essentially laying down a quaint little homage to Next. I don't think most top chefs/restaurants would want to do that. I think they want their own spotlight. Remember, this is Next's menu, not Escoffier's, even though it's comprised of Escoffier's recipes. The analogy to symphony or opera isn't a very good fit.

I'd be very curious to see what the reactions would be to some other restaurant taking this on. I think it's more likely that we'll see individuals attempting to take this menu on in their homes and then blogging about it or posting about it online. In fact, I think it's safe to say that's certain to happen, if it hasn't already (I haven't checked, so I don't know).

I do think there's going to be a noticeable surge in "chrono cuisine" over the next several years. The idea is brilliant and compelling. It appeals to chefs who have an appreciation for culinary history and to diners, too. Even though the concept is not necessarily original to Next, I think they've pulled it off so successfully, the category is almost certain to develop behind them.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:I think that if another restaurant put on Paris 1906, the range of possible outcomes would be mostly negative. First, I think it would be viewed as a very derivative act. The best case is that you do it as well or better than Next (if that's even measurable) and all you're doing is essentially laying down a quaint little homage to Next. I don't think most top chefs/restaurants would want to do that. I think they want their own spotlight. Remember, this is Next's menu, not Escoffier's, even though it's comprised of Escoffier's recipes. The analogy to symphony or opera isn't a very good fit.=R=

This is what I don't understand, entirely. Why is it not a good fit? Why is it quaint. How many productions of Hamlet are there each year? How many orchestras do selections of Schubert? We don't say in a negative way, "Well, this is derivative." Of course it is derivative. But great scripts and scores (and, just maybe, recipes) have this quality. Yes, there are difference is the decor of the restaurant/theater, and the dishes are not identical as they are prepared by "performers."

Does Steppenwolf complain that "August: Osage County" is being produced around the country?

It is true that we used to have a canon of cuisine (Escoffier - which is what makes Paris 1906 so fascinating in light of this debate), but we have moved away from the canon of classic and repeatable dishes. Yes, one will sometimes taste an "L'Arpege Egg," but most dishes vanish into the ether, unless home cooks wish to serve them. We need more homages, I believe.

GAF wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I think that if another restaurant put on Paris 1906, the range of possible outcomes would be mostly negative. First, I think it would be viewed as a very derivative act. The best case is that you do it as well or better than Next (if that's even measurable) and all you're doing is essentially laying down a quaint little homage to Next. I don't think most top chefs/restaurants would want to do that. I think they want their own spotlight. Remember, this is Next's menu, not Escoffier's, even though it's comprised of Escoffier's recipes. The analogy to symphony or opera isn't a very good fit.=R=

This is what I don't understand, entirely. Why is it not a good fit? Why is it quaint. How many productions of Hamlet are there each year? How many orchestras do selections of Schubert? We don't say in a negative way, "Well, this is derivative." Of course it is derivative. But great scripts and scores (and, just maybe, recipes) have this quality. Yes, there are difference is the decor of the restaurant/theater, and the dishes are not identical as they are prepared by "performers."

Does Steppenwolf complain that "August: Osage County" is being produced around the country?

It is true that we used to have a canon of cuisine (Escoffier - which is what makes Paris 1906 so fascinating in light of this debate), but we have moved away from the canon of classic and repeatable dishes. Yes, one will sometimes taste an "L'Arpege Egg," but most dishes vanish into the ether, unless home cooks wish to serve them. We need more homages, I believe.

I think it's derivative because the very idea to produce this menu was someone else's. The exact recipes, served in the same order? It's been done and the act of doing it was an original one. Even if someone compiled a menu of entirely different Escoffier recipes, I think it would still feel derivative but maybe less so. Fwiw, in most cases, a composer or playwright cannot perform his or her own works (of course, there are exceptions). These are works in which, for the most part, the art of the performer is different from the art of the creator. Generally speaking, they're meant to be interpreted by others. With recipes, maybe that's also true. With menus, not so much. At some point, you're just re-recording someone else's album.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be potentially interesting or that there's anything inherently wrong with it. I'm just saying that I don't believe, knowing what I know about chefs, that such a concept would have much appeal to many of them. Since they create menus, if they're not into it, it isn't going to happen. But again, times change. Who knows? Maybe this Next menu will break down a barrier and 3 years from now, directly repeating another chef's menu will be the coin of the realm among top chefs. I just see it as a very big leap for a chef, especially for one who views him or herself as an auteur, to venture down this road. I think the risk is high and the potential reward is fairly low.

=R=

Switch homages for "tribute bands" and this all makes more sense to the simpletons here (me). I'd pay for a culinary Tributosaurus show, but not when the objet d'hommage has just left the stage.

ronnie_suburban wrote:

GAF wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I think that if another restaurant put on Paris 1906, the range of possible outcomes would be mostly negative. First, I think it would be viewed as a very derivative act. The best case is that you do it as well or better than Next (if that's even measurable) and all you're doing is essentially laying down a quaint little homage to Next. I don't think most top chefs/restaurants would want to do that. I think they want their own spotlight. Remember, this is Next's menu, not Escoffier's, even though it's comprised of Escoffier's recipes. The analogy to symphony or opera isn't a very good fit.=R=

This is what I don't understand, entirely. Why is it not a good fit? Why is it quaint. How many productions of Hamlet are there each year? How many orchestras do selections of Schubert? We don't say in a negative way, "Well, this is derivative." Of course it is derivative. But great scripts and scores (and, just maybe, recipes) have this quality. Yes, there are difference is the decor of the restaurant/theater, and the dishes are not identical as they are prepared by "performers."

Does Steppenwolf complain that "August: Osage County" is being produced around the country?

It is true that we used to have a canon of cuisine (Escoffier - which is what makes Paris 1906 so fascinating in light of this debate), but we have moved away from the canon of classic and repeatable dishes. Yes, one will sometimes taste an "L'Arpege Egg," but most dishes vanish into the ether, unless home cooks wish to serve them. We need more homages, I believe.

I think it's derivative because the very idea to produce this menu was someone else's. The exact recipes, served in the same order? It's been done and the act of doing it was an original one. Even if someone compiled a menu of entirely different Escoffier recipes, I think it would still feel derivative but maybe less so. Fwiw, in most cases, a composer or playwright cannot perform his or her own works (of course, there are exceptions). These are works in which, for the most part, the art of the performer is different from the art of the creator. Generally speaking, they're meant to be interpreted by others. With recipes, maybe that's also true. With menus, not so much. At some point, you're just re-recording someone else's album.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be potentially interesting or that there's anything inherently wrong with it. I'm just saying that I don't believe, knowing what I know about chefs, that such a concept would have much appeal to many of them. Since they create menus, if they're not into it, it isn't going to happen. But again, times change. Who knows? Maybe this Next menu will break down a barrier and 3 years from now, directly repeating another chef's menu will be the coin of the realm among top chefs. I just see it as a very big leap for a chef, especially for one who views him or herself as an auteur, to venture down this road. I think the risk is high and the potential reward is fairly low.

=R=

I pretty much agree with this. Why would a chef want to take a concept that involves using and interpreting recipes as an homage to Escoffier and then copying that. It's kind of like regifting. Sure there are plenty of people who would want to try the same menu, but it's just not the same. Not the same setting, not the same hands. What about creativity? What would be the reaction of the diners? To me, I'd be less inclined to go to an imitator than to the original. I'd probably say it's more akin to going and seeing a tribute band, not so much a single cover. Lots of dishes get taken and adapted to other menus, but generally with the creativity of the sourcing chef interjected. I just don't see the positive of basically replicating the same menu...

Don't forget the promised/threatened replication of the menu from French Laundry the day Achatz started working there. That's a total culinary tribute act.

NobleSquirrel wrote:Why would a chef want to take a concept that involves using and interpreting recipes as an homage to Escoffier and then copying that. It's kind of like regifting. Sure there are plenty of people who would want to try the same menu, but it's just not the same. Not the same setting, not the same hands. What about creativity? What would be the reaction of the diners? To me, I'd be less inclined to go to an imitator than to the original. I'd probably say it's more akin to going and seeing a tribute band, not so much a single cover. Lots of dishes get taken and adapted to other menus, but generally with the creativity of the sourcing chef interjected. I just don't see the positive of basically replicating the same menu...

From my perspective, I see dinners as performances, not fabrications. Let me change the focus slightly from Paris 1906 (which is based on Escoffier) to Thailand 2032 where the recipes are from Grant and Dave and we don't have the second level analysis. (Although part of my argument was that Grant and Dave WERE repeating dishes, so why couldn't someone continue to repeat the same dishes (with the same kinds of tweaks common in theaters and symphonies)). Why is this not a script of Hamlet, a score of Beethoven. When you go to the Chicago Symphony, you don't say "What about creativity? Why are you imitating the original performance? Create your own damn tragedy or symphony, don't just imitate Shakespeare or Beethoven!" Yes, of course, it is not the same setting, not the same hands. Very true. But that is not a charge against the theater or the symphony.

What I am wrestling with is why is cuisine not like the theater or the symphony. What makes food different? Are recipes are scripts/scores and dinners plays/concerts?

Vitesse98 wrote:Don't forget the promised/threatened replication of the menu from French Laundry the day Achatz started working there. That's a total culinary tribute act.

But this is not what I am getting at. When we produce Hamlet, we are not paying "tribute" to Shakespeare. That is not the primary motivation. We stage Hamlet, because it is a great work of art, and should be seen again and again - with all of the tweaks and staging techniques that theaters are capable of.

I'd say great cuisine can be like the symphony. We all know the score/recipe, but the fun is in hearing/tasting what the conductor/chef does with it.

Vitesse98 wrote:Don't forget the promised/threatened replication of the menu from French Laundry the day Achatz started working there. That's a total culinary tribute act.

This I could understand in that Achatz and Keller are very good friends.

=R=

Very interesting returning to Next this past weekend to see how things have evolved since our first dinner there pre-opening.

I would say that the food was just as good if not slightly improved. There were minor tweaks made everywhere that seriously improved the things I thought were flawed the first time (the chicken dish was much more successful, the temperature of the sole was where it needed to be, the texture of the bombe was much improved). I was disappointed that we didn't get the lamb course, but life goes on.

The Paris menu was a huge success, but in a lot of ways the challenge will be even more significant for Thailand 2032. There's going to be a very fine line between pulling it off and just being another version of Arun's. In a lot of ways the degree of difficulty for the Thailand menu would probably be a lot lower if Next were in New York. But, in a town like this, the bar is pretty high. I look forward to seeing how it plays out.

Still trying to decide if I want to get early tickets and late tickets just to see the difference (if there is any) like you are describing.

My wife already decided she wants to be totally surprised by the menu so she is going on a complete Next media blackout. I doubt I can follow her lead.

I had a different experience. The first time in early May was nearly perfect, but a return trip one month later found a few courses lacking. The turtle soup was cloudy and had a distinct rather unpleasant flavor that was not present the first time. The fish was a little mushy and the chicken tasted slightly underdone. The first time, service was like a well-orchestrated movement, but on the second visit it seemed so chaotic. My tickets for the second time were much later in the evening which may have contributed to some of the differences, but I almost wished I only went once.

Not that it matters after tomorrow, but I just wanted to chime in about that chicken dish... and how I couldn't stand half of it. The chicken itself was great, though the sauce reminded me of a slice of melted American cheese (and immediately turned me off somewhat). The cucumber on the other hand... blech. It was an interesting dish, in terms of being something that people would have eaten in 1906 Paris, but unlike the duck dish, I did not feel it translated to modern expectations for a dish. I mean, there's a reason no one makes that dish anymore (as far as I know anyway).

danimalarkey wrote:Not that it matters after tomorrow, but I just wanted to chime in about that chicken dish... and how I couldn't stand half of it. The chicken itself was great, though the sauce reminded me of a slice of melted American cheese (and immediately turned me off somewhat). The cucumber on the other hand... blech. It was an interesting dish, in terms of being something that people would have eaten in 1906 Paris, but unlike the duck dish, I did not feel it translated to modern expectations for a dish. I mean, there's a reason no one makes that dish anymore (as far as I know anyway).

As much as I have this unconditional dislike for American cheese, I love that sauce. And it goes very well with the chicken, IMO. Though I do agree that the cucumber is... odd/off somehow. The presentation is sure interesting, but the textures of different ingredients don't seem to go well together. Back to the chicken dish, does the sauce have a specific name or recipe online that one can access without buying Escoffier's cookbook?

onix wrote:Back to the chicken dish, does the sauce have a specific name or recipe online that one can access without buying Escoffier's cookbook?

Never mind, they're releasing a recipe ebook for Paris 1906, including step + step pictures. Awesome.

From the facebook feed

While Paris 1906 may be ending, we are hard at work producing a Paris 1906 e-book. Complete and detailed recipes of every course, step by step pics, commentary from the chefs, and a few dishes that didn't quite make it to the menu. Best part... pay whatever you want download, with 20% of any sale over $5 going to Head & Neck cancer research. Launching sometime in August...

turkob wrote:From the facebook feed

While Paris 1906 may be ending, we are hard at work producing a Paris 1906 e-book. Complete and detailed recipes of every course, step by step pics, commentary from the chefs, and a few dishes that didn't quite make it to the menu. Best part... pay whatever you want download, with 20% of any sale over $5 going to Head & Neck cancer research. Launching sometime in August...

pretty cool, esp if they do this with every cycle they have. having picked up david chang's Lucky Peach quarterly, i definitely think there's room for more food related print media out there.

(if they released these in physical format, i would subscribe)

Now Appearing in Chicago, a Restaurant in Footlights. From tomorrow's NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/dinin ... ref=dining