Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! ^ I honestly haven't eaten enough in the four to say... I also think this one is going to depend on how "food scene" is defined. New Orleans cuisine is Creole, which has French influences, but to be honest with you a number of dishes in New Orleans seem to have more parallels with Caribbean dishes than with French overall IMO though you can of course find influences and great French specific food in N.O. New Orleans is also in all likelihood going to win for seafood here. New York City is where I'd think one would be able to find the widest diversity of "best" stuff though of course Paris is quite good too. Paris is classically associated with being the center of foodie culture, both in terms of bakeries and in terms of fine dining. I'd think that because of that and the general expectation and competition, of course you can find plenty of great places anywhere but Paris is going to win on atmosphere. I'd actually venture Rome's food scene might be the least desirable of the bunch, at least immediately around there. Many visiting the center of Rome are tourists, and as with Venice, the pressure then is not quite as high to have every place around town have "excellent food" because that isn't what people are centrally there for is to eat (more likely there to tour historical sights and then enjoy other aspects of the city in that order), and it's not quite as diverse as the others and so while Italian food has of course been celebrated, I would venture you'd find better examples of it in places like Tuscany, the Riviera and Milan. JMO, could be wrong though.
French influence is shown through the cooking styles and techniques. Creole food is heavy Italian, West African, and Caribbean cooked with French techniques.
NY, being the capital of the world..all the best cooks in the world flock there. More international and no tourist traps like Rome, Paris and London.
NYC is no less of a tourisst trap than the other cities mentioned and a lot of cities attract good chefs.
How to rank food and chefs is subject to some controversy, and there had been criticism of some guides, indeed the late A.A. Gill famously attacked the michelin guide which he called 'Out of Touch,' 'Bloated,' and 'Embarrassing'. Other critics have included the late Anthony Bourdain, Marco Pierre White, Mario Francesco Batali, Franck Dangereux, William Sitwell and numerous others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA Gill
Being French, of course the guide has always been the subject of conspiracy theories regarding the allocation of stars, the number of inspectors, and their quality and disinterest.
Having made the hierarchy of chefs, the guide found that it was in its interest to maintain it. A handful of grand and gluttonous kitchens seemed to keep their rating long after their fashion and food faded. Michelin evolved from the wandering Candide of food to become the creeping Richelieu: manipulative, obsessive, and secretive.
When the occasional ex-michellin inspector goes public, there are stories of exhausting and unsustainable lives on the road, covering vast areas where the pleasure of food is made a relentless and lonely craft. There are admissions that many dining rooms are not revisited year after year.
But still, Michelin has launched in a number of foreign countries. And though it claims its standards are universal and unimpeachable, it proves how Francophile and bloated and snobbish the whole business really is and that, far from being a lingua franca, the food on our plate is as varied as any other aspect of a national culture.
For instance, Italy has absurdly few three-star restaurants, apparently because the criteria of complexity and presentation aren’t up to Michelin—French—standards, and the marvelously rich and varied curries of India plainly seem to baffle the guide.
The city with the most stars is Tokyo, but then, many of its restaurants have barely a handful of chairs, and most benefit from the Gallic reverence for O.C.D. saucing and solitary boy’s knife skills.
In both London and New York, the guide appears to be wholly out of touch with the way people actually eat, still being most comfortable rewarding fat, conservative, fussy rooms that use expensive ingredients with ingratiating pomp to serve glossy plutocrats and their speechless rental dates.
NYC like London has a diversity of food, however whether national cusine is generally appreciated or acclaimed as much as French, Italian, Spanish national food is debatable. Wh
You can find good quality restaurants in NYC but is the local cusine as good as say French cusine, indeed the US has often just Americanised European food, in a similar way to say the British anglicising Indian food.
Certainly Italy and Rome does not do as well in relation to Michelin as France, and cities such as NYC are no match for Paris, that is if you are a firm believer in Michelins criteria and standing as a guide to international cusine, even though it often discrimates in favour of a certain type of cusine. Indeed there are no michelin starred restaurants in many countries wth very cusine such as India, whilst no Indian restaurant has ever received more than one michelin star.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-21-2018 at 08:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
