Marty Raves 3.5 Stars, Robin Dings 79 (Wasabiya Sushi)

Oh, the drama! One of the biggest disparities of opinion that I've seen among the two, makes things interesting....


Wasabiya | Louisville Restaurant Review
Sushi made exotic again
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/ ... ant+Review

Wasabiya serves creative sushi, but not without a few flaws
http://www.louisvillehotbytes.com/wasab ... -few-flaws

Ruh-roh Shaggy!!!



Seriously though, Robin had me all but convinced not to try this place but Marty's words and pictures have convinced me otherwise. Suddenly I see an omakase birthday dinner in my future...

Wow a lot was gleaned from one visit at lunch time. I have to say I think I'm becoming partial to Mr. Rosen's "curbed prose". His articles of late seem more focused and food oriented and less Metaphoric and Simile showered than some I've read all across the city's various publications.

[Robin Garr]

Read the words, folks. It doesn't take many visits to get the sense of a sushi bar that will sell old product. Sushi has to be fresh. Fishy-smelling sushi, bad iced tea and wacky service just don't speak well of management policy.

I have always enjoyed Marty's reviews and how thorough he has been in every aspect of of reviewing. He has always been a pleasure to work with and he is certainly competent in reviewing restaurants. I really appreciate how he reviews all venues of food, from white tablecloth to rib joints and he always gives a fair and exacting review. He doesn't have "favorites" that he turns a blind eye to when giving reviews and I have never seen him give a strafing rant of a restaurant in either print form or on a public forum.

Keep up the great work Marty.

I have always enjoyed Marty's reviews and how thorough he has been in every aspect of of reviewing. He has always been a pleasure to work with and he is certainly competent in reviewing restaurants. I really appreciate how he reviews all venues of food, from white tablecloth to rib joints and he always gives a fair and exacting review. He doesn't have "favorites" that he turns a blind eye to when giving reviews and I have never seen him give a strafing rant of a restaurant in either print form or on a public forum.

Keep up the great work Marty.

Dave, I love ya, but do be carefull with the 'playing favorites' comment. How much do you wanna bet that Marty has a favorite restaurant in the city? I know it, because he told me it, in it. Are you gonna see another review from him, after this realization? Probably not. How much ya wanna bet Robin avoid's reviewing his own favorite restaurants and people? Case in point: me. I have never taken a review from Robin, for exactly this reason. Execpt for a couple of competitions- and I have a nagging suspicion that he looks at my entries with a stronger level of criticism, but maybe I'm wrong.

Bums me out, in a way- but I do enjoy the friendship much more than a review- no matter how good or bad.

On a lighter note- I have taken a review from Marty, before he knew me. He described my service as 'borderline performance art, which could annoy some diners, yet it's hard not to appreciate someone who enjoys the work that much.'



Yeah, kinda true- ok, very true!

I have always enjoyed Marty's reviews and how thorough he has been in every aspect of of reviewing. He has always been a pleasure to work with and he is certainly competent in reviewing restaurants. I really appreciate how he reviews all venues of food, from white tablecloth to rib joints and he always gives a fair and exacting review. He doesn't have "favorites" that he turns a blind eye to when giving reviews and I have never seen him give a strafing rant of a restaurant in either print form or on a public forum.

Keep up the great work Marty.

Dave, I love ya, but do be carefull with the 'playing favorites' comment. How much do you wanna bet that Marty has a favorite restaurant in the city? I know it, because he told me it, in it. Are you gonna see another review from him, after this realization? Probably not. How much ya wanna bet Robin avoid's reviewing his own favorite restaurants and people? Case in point: me. I have never taken a review from Robin, for exactly this reason. Execpt for a couple of competitions- and I have a nagging suspicion that he looks at my entries with a stronger level of criticism, but maybe I'm wrong.

Bums me out, in a way- but I do enjoy the friendship much more than a review- no matter how good or bad.

On a lighter note- I have taken a review from Marty, before he knew me. He described my service as 'borderline performance art, which could annoy some diners, yet it's hard not to appreciate someone who enjoys the work that much.'



Yeah, kinda true- ok, very true!

Stephen, I see no foul in David's post. I completely understand what he is saying and I'm trying to come up with a good way to rephrase this without setting anyone off. I read all food reviews with a certain sense that the reviewer has different food tastes than me.

You compared both Mr. Rosen and Robin, but honestly, I can't really compare the two since they've really separated themselves on their own:
Mr. Rosen - pops into our lives once or twice a week with a column in the C-J, doesn't actively participate in forums and for the most part, remains virtually anonymous for the sake of his reviewing. (I'm not suggesting he is a hermit... I for one have seen him out and about twice in the last several months.) From what I've heard, he does all of his own reviews since he has no "favorites" or as I translated David's post, friends in the industry to prevent him from writing an unbiased review.

Robin - runs LHB... so I'd say that the individual user controls their daily dose of Robin ( ) and as far as I can gather from various posts, he's a pretty active member of the community via different restaurants and outings. Because of this closeness with the community, this puts up a roadblock when it comes to reviewing places. I understand that completely.

So, based on my really generic assessment of the two food reviewers, I'd say that Robin would have the more difficult time in reviewing restaurants as opposed to Mr. Rosen. Robin is more of a friend who wants to see you do well and Mr. Rosen is more of a step-mom who you are constantly trying to please, but can never seem to get it right.

Both parties are extremely necessary. But, if I'm being honest, I'd rather be the one who gets to go out and have people know what I look like!

Really? Mr. Rosen has a favorite restaurant in town? Color me surprised! I think I'd be more surprised if he didn't.

Well done, Tara!

I enjoyed that tremendously- a completely new point of view, for me. Sharp and well-considered, you really have a heck of a perspective.

Forumites- I received an e-mail from Marty Rosen this morning to post on Hotbytes this post. He asked me to do this and I obliged, so truly in this case don't shoot the messenger. I just am forwarding his reply.

Greetings, Forumites!

Like any writer, I’m always delighted that anyone cares enough about my columns to discuss and critique them.

Regarding Wasabiya: Robin has been reviewing restaurants for decades. If he writes that a piece of sushi was “palatable,” but “showed signs of age,” then that’s what happened. It didn’t happen to me, but all of us who eat frequently in restaurants are aware that variability is inevitable, even in the finest establishments.

That said, the Courier-Journal’s long-standing practice with regard to restaurant reviews is not to base a negative review on a single visit. In fact, I always try to avoid basing any review, good or bad, on a single visit (and can only think of a couple of cases where I’ve done so in the last year).

Restaurants, especially independent, owner-operated places are complex, idiosyncratic, human organizations, and those second and third visits enrich my understanding of a place and either corroborate or challenge my first impressions.

Moreover, I write for readers whose dining needs and motivations encompass a wide range of contexts. Sometimes they want quiet intimacy, sometimes a rambunctious atmosphere, sometimes formality, and sometimes family-casual. And yes, some of whom want their server to entertain them with performance art.

My goal in a review is to give readers an entertaining and informative read that conveys a clear interpretation of what a restaurateur is attempting to accomplish; what service, environmental, and culinary strategies he or she is using to get there; what attributes distinguish this restaurant from other similar places; and how it might match up with diners’ needs.

Understanding how a place might fit into other people’s lives is an imaginative exercise that usually requires more than a single visit, at least for me.

Yes, reviews involve making an assessment and assigning a “rating,” but the more important goal is to help readers decide whether a place might fit their tastes and their changing needs. That, I think, is the most important part of the reviewer’s job.

With regard to the discussion among David, Stephen, and Tara, I will observe that there is a difference between “having” favorites, and “playing” favorites. Right now I have four favorite places that are convenient for me, and where I like to hang out when I am not on the job. I am recognized at all those places, and am often greeted by name at all of them. Three of them are frequently mentioned as forum favorites. The other, I don’t mind saying, is the Swan Dive, a two-and-a-half-star place that I commend to your attention for its excellent draft beers, fun vegetarian menu, hippie vibe, and free shuffleboard.

As for “playing” favorites, that’s another matter. I am writing for readers, and I strive to be conscientious about my ethical responsibility to give readers an accurate report and an honest assessment in each review.

Notwithstanding commentary that has occasionally surfaced on this forum, the editors of The Courier-Journal abide by rigorous ethical standards and have never interfered with or attempted in any way to influence my reviews or ratings. Nor has there ever been even the hint of a connection between the advertising arm of The Courier-Journal and what I do in the columns. The notion that there is some dark force in the Courier-Journal editorial offices that bends and twists my reviews and and ratings for nefarious purposes is, to put it simply, an absurd superstition that has no relationship to reality.

The columns manifest my taste and temperament, my analysis, and my modes of expression. In the “In Search of Column,” my sole criterion for writing about something is that I have to like it enough that I want to tell readers about it. In the restaurant reviews, our editorial practice is that I select the restaurants for review with a view toward offering readers a wide variety of locations, styles, and price points (and newsworthiness is a consideration, of course).

For the record, I do have social relationships with a few people in the restaurant business. Those relationships developed after, not before, I reviewed their places, and involve shared interests that are independent of the world of food and dining. But those relationships are such that if I now reviewed their work, it might create the appearance of a conflict of interest. I won’t be doing that. However, given that I have not taken a vacation from the Saturday restaurant review in more than four years, and given that the Courier-Journal has an outstanding pool of excellent, knowledgeable writers, I’m confident that when one of their places needs to be re-reviewed my editors and I will be able to find a reviewer who can approach the assignment with the requisite objectivity.

By the way, I do appreciate the feedback, advice, and criticism I receive, and I attempt to answer all the email that arrives at cjdining@gmail.com.

Regards,

Marty Rosen

I dare not quote that post...

Simply put, that's why enjoy Marty so much. Like Robin, he has layers upon layers of consideration. It's just a joy, intellectually, to 'play in the fields' with them.

(Tag! You're it!)

[Robin Garr]

Forumites- I received an e-mail from Marty Rosen this morning to post on Hotbytes this post. He asked me to do this and I obliged, so truly in this case don't shoot the messenger. I just am forwarding his reply.

That's all fair, David, and thanks for posting. I wish Marty felt comfortable posting here himself.

The only comment I'll make regards multiple visits: I often do that. For next week's column for LHB and the Voice-Tribune, I went to the new Molly Malone's in St. Matthews three times, because I wanted to be certain that my initial impression was accurate.

However, I use my own judgment on this issue. Based on 25 years of reviewing, I can judge pretty well whether I've got the sense of a place after one visit, two or three. Wasabiya? Fish that's past its prime in a sushi bar speaks for itself, as does management's willingness to serve it. Having seen (and smelled and tasted) that gave me all the information I needed to make my call. Even if a second visit had been stellar, it wouldn't change the reality that this restaurant willingly put noticeably unpalatable product out to the public and charged full price. End of story.

(I would also add that it's naive to think that most restaurateurs - certainly the sharper cookies - don't figure out who the critics are very quickly after a new hand shows up at the Louisville ranch. I can't pretend that most of the local folks don't know me ... and while Marty didn't specifically say this, I'm sure he would agree that the situation is the same for him. There are ways to minimize this, and they're simpler and more direct than wearing wigs and costumes. But the bottom line is that consistent fairness and a reputation for calling it as it is ... for better or for worse ... is key.

I'm also blessed to have the option - through both the HotBytes and the LEO communities - to send in surrogate critics in cases where I know that I'm known AND I believe the restaurateur is not capable of treating a critic like every other customer and every customer like a critic. I've passed off the duty for several top restaurants for just this reason, and the results have been interesting. Some places passed the unknown critic test with flying colors. Others, not so much.

Well done, Tara!

I enjoyed that tremendously- a completely new point of view, for me. Sharp and well-considered, you really have a heck of a perspective.

I don't play with those sharp knives you kitchen folk do, therefore I try and keep my "outsiders" perspective sharp to keep y'all on your toes!

10 of us had dinner there last night. While the service was spotty to downright poor at times,(our waitress seemed to be either new or just very bad,) everything, and I mean everything I tried was excellent. I can't speak to the consistency of quality, but I'll be back soon and give a report.