The Michelin Guide Got It Right

(and a new newsletter series announcement)

Newsletter day!! Hello readers - I hope you’re all well.

To start off, this is unintentionally the third and final instalment in my criticism of music criticism “series”. I say unintentionally as it started with this podcast: “Music Criticism is Broken” from February, then, May’s newsletter: “Anthony Fantano, the Last Emperor,” and has now spawned another bastard child - this newsletter, where I attempt to find a solution to my own internal music criticism debate. Shall we do one last dance?

---

Before I start, I’d like to let you know about a new newsletter series I’m launching this month. I’m calling it The Permanent Collection.

An art gallery’s permanent collection is just that - a collection of masterpieces that have come to define the gallery, and have been bestowed with a permanent spot for it to hang forever. You go to Musée d'Orsay for Starry Night. You go to Australia’s National Art Gallery for Pollock’s Blue Poles. And you will find every song that has ever meant a great deal to me in The Permanent Collection. I’ve always wanted a quiet place where I can share stories of my most beloved songs and albums. Short-form video never felt like the right home for that, so I’m excited to finally find a home for these stories and songs!

Some of the posts will be available to free subscribers, others, only to paid members, who will also have access to a private playlist of all the songs I talk about.

---

As the title of this newsletter goes, I think that the gastronomer’s bible- the Michelin Guide got it right when reviewing an art form. I can see a can of worms already opening up - can a hot dog be art? I shall not go down this rabbit hole, but let’s consider that in this essay, an art form is defined as creative expression designed for an audience’s consumption.

The world-renowned “gold standard” for restaurant reviews, it is somewhat universally known that if one is awarded a Michelin Star (or three), your craft is deemed to be of the highest calibre in the pursuit of gastronomic excellence. You aren’t just good or great; you are exceptional.

Is food reviewing similar to music reviewing? Yes, and no. Among friends, I can’t seem to get a consensus on what is the best pizza in the city, let alone the neighbourhood, and I’d imagine it’d be similar when debating our favourite flavour of Tyler, the Creator. Taste is subjective, whether bud or ear drum. Some like it decadent and fatty, others like it as plain as buttered bread. But somehow, Michelin has figured out a way to make their awards less contentious and more prestigious, which, I like to imagine, is the way music criticism can move forward.

Where Rubber Meats the Rocky Road

Let’s start at the start. In 1900 the Michelin brothers Édouard and André Michelin wanted to increase the demand for cars, and subsequently the need for tyres. But instead of advertising tyres, they advertised travel - and specifically, adventures of the intrepid gastronaut, flinging avid diners across France in search of the finest dining experiences known to man. The guide, along with the starred reviews, came with maps, tyre repair and replacement instructions, car mechanic listings, hotels, and petrol stations throughout France.

Brilliant! I can hear the Don Draper pitch in my head: “At Michelin, we don’t sell rubber; we sell memories. We sell the candlelit proposal after a sunset-gold crème brûlée. We don’t sell tyres, ladies and gentlemen; we sell life.”

But Derrick, how credible can a guide designed as a marketing tool to sell rubber be? To be fair, I think the Michelin Guide does more to support the tarmac rubber of aeroplanes rather than cars these days. If we were to go by their original marketing plan, perhaps the guide should now be called The Booking.com-Uber-Emirates-Google Maps-Shell-Michelin Guide. Having existed since 1900, it’s safe to say the guide’s reputation has earned its credibility, far beyond the need for a new set of front rubbers.

Meanwhile, in music…

If you read my previous newsletter or heard my podcast - I have been critical of critics after clicks. Clicktics? Sounds rude. This baiting is still a fairly recent phenomenon, sadly driven by the need for ad impressions over impressive critical analysis. A world where the editor judges editorial success by click through rate, rather than impact and substance. But, to be fair, this does not represent the totality of music criticism and celebration. Here’s what I’ve got:

• Blogs and short form content creators: People like me! People with an opinion and a place to talk about it. The bar is low, the opinions are…questionable

• Long form reviews: Whether it be on YouTube or an indie blog, the longer the review, often the more thought has been put into it…right?

• Publications: While most of these publications are less relevant these days (e.g., Rolling Stone), the old stalwarts still command respect when a publicist is in need of a quote or your parent’s need to know if it’s worth listening to while they crack open their Sunday eggs. It’s here you’ll find more stars and /10 ratings…usually by a long tenured and much out of touch reviewer

• Award shows: “music’s night of nights” they call them. Judged by an amalgam of critics, musicians and industry professionals - the ones who are eligible to submit are judged on many factors that often lead to great results (Lauryn Hill’s five Grammy’s in 1999) as well as questionable ones (cough cough Macklemore over Kendrick cough cough)

• Charts: When you think too hard about it, charting is an unusual way to celebrate art. When I look through the top 100 Billboard charts, more often than not I haven’t heard of 95% of the names. And the one I do recognise is Adele’s 21, which has reentered the charts for the 11th time. Being Number 1 is a barometer, for…something, but not always greatness. More likely, it is more of a celebration of the major label, radio, bundling and marketing machine succeeding at what it does best - getting that number 1 so you can put a sticker on the CD pack that reads “Number 1 album!”

Other than being the impossible anomaly of Bob Dylan winning a Nobel Prize for Literature, that is a general list of music accolades. Not bad. But I’d argue nothing similar to the Michelin Guide.

Mmmm…Delicious World Food

Of the critical universe, I’d say Michelin is much closer to a rolling award show than a hot-take review train. Being the giver of awards, there’s much stricter criteria and measures to at least attempt objectivity. And while I am sure that the Michelin guide is far from objective, its reputation speaks for itself. Chefs want it. Hell, even local councils desire it. Think of the increased foot traffic!

You see, the bar for entry is high. A Michelin star is something you earn, by being great, consistently. Being great is the mantra of the guide. By design, it exists to celebrate greatness, rather than tear down mediocrity. Obviously, you can see why I’m a fan of this model, as this foundation sets a tone - that a Michelin star is something to strive for and once there, you are in rarified air. It is an acknowledgement that it is difficult to accomplish and awarded to very few. And as I’m sure you’ve seen before - sometimes the stars are awarded to the most unexpected candidates, such as Hawker Chan, which has been awarded one star for Chef Chan Hon Meng’s $5 Cantonese soy sauce chicken.

Here are three ways that the Michelin Guide sets itself apart:

1. It’s global: Bossam in Seoul or cassoulet in Provence, a great chef is a great chef and the tongue is capable of enjoying them both equally. This is not like the NBA Finals, where one North American team is crowned “World Champions” - if you are on the list, you are exceptional, and in many ways comparable to greats from opposite corners of the globe. I dream of a more globalised acknowledgement of great music. You don’t hear people say: “oh I love world food” when they eat bibimbap. But they love “world music” if they hear a stringed instrument that isn’t a violin or guitar

2. Anonymity: reviewers are anonymous, and do not hang their hat on being “known” for their reviews. That standard brings a level of objectivity, as it strikes out the need to be controversial for views or clicks, or for the author to “make a name for themselves”. They are there to judge the food on the criteria they have been set, then get the hell out of there before anyone notices. Many of the top executives at Michelin have never met an inspector, and inspectors are advised not to disclose their line of work to even their closest loved ones. This! This is a pursuit of awarding and celebrating the finest art - putting the chef on a pedestal, rather than the reviewer

3. No stars: My Uber rule is either five stars or no stars. If you’ve done good enough, who am I to strike you down to three stars because the banter was a bit tiresome? It’s your job, and you deserve more of it (unless you’re actually a creep). Similarly with the Michelin rating, thousands of establishments are surveyed, but if it doesn’t meet the “exceptional” criteria, you just aren’t awarded a star. You don’t get a letter telling you that you’ve failed - you just haven’t met the criteria to be considered truly one of a kind - yet. Restaurants can operate for decades before being awarded a star. Others can have them awarded, then removed a year later. The idea being - focus on yourself, and perhaps your time will come

4. Categories: I like how one can be deemed best in your category as opposed to number 45 in a list of 100. For instance, you might be an exceptional hawker stall, and therefore you are awarded a star. But if you’re also an exceptional French bistro, you are also eligible for star treatment. Being awarded a star doesn’t necessarily mean you are THE best, but among a list of peers - some of the greatest in their field at that very moment. You aren’t the champions more than you are championed

5. A cap: A limited number of stars are awarded each year. The limitation does not mean that the unawarded are not great, but perhaps haven’t yet resonated with the inspectors - not to say it won’t later down the track. There’s a limit to their love, almost to protect the Guide from turning into a phonebook of better than average restaurants - because let’s be real, there are millions of better than average establishments out there
   

Reading the Stars

Let’s go over their judging criteria shall we?

Michelin Inspector’s 5 Restaurant Rating Criteria

1. Quality of products

2. Mastery of flavour and cooking techniques

3. The personality of the chef represented in the dining experience

4. Value for money

5. Consistency between inspectors’ visits

Quality! Mastery! Personality! Value! Consistency! The only one that probably isn’t relevant to music is value for money. Although perhaps one could argue that Migos’ Culture II should have paid me to listen to it.

Lastly, let’s break down the star rating:

• One star: A very good restaurant in its category

• Two stars: Excellent cooking, worth a detour

• Three stars: Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey

Ahh, don’t you love the integration of travel in their criteria? “Three stars: Exceptional cuisine, worth driving ten hours on fresh, grippy tyres.” What I love about this system is that even getting one star is an enviable achievement. One star does not signify 1 star out of five; more like one star out of 1,000 other entries. Similarly, the coveted two or three stars does not equate to 4/5 or 10/10 - it is an acknowledgement that the restaurant is at the peak of its pursuits, and should be tasted to be believed.

Finally, onto Music

As you may know - I hate comparisons and competition around music. For example, comparing Lil Pump’s self titled 2017 debut (while brilliant) to Neil Young’s Harvest (no qualification needed), is like comparing a school yard fist fight to cleaning horseshoes around a fire. Is one better than the other? That’s hardly the point. I’d argue, they are both necessary, and can exist on the same timeline.

So to parrot back the above, let’s apply Michelin’s process to music:

• Anonymity: An anonymous cohort of respected music professionals from a wide range of backgrounds, ages, genders (who have a speciality in particular categories), are tasked to review a list of albums each year. The cohort is large, and ideally judges have a tenure that rotates with time. There’s nothing worse than an old, crotchety fossil wishing for a time when “music was simpler” on the judging panel

• Timeframe: These albums do not need to be reviewed immediately after they come out. It can be months, even years, before a judge weighs in. If a 2020 album gets a star three years later, so be it - it means that the judges are not hasty in their judgement. I kind of love the idea of an album being awarded a star many years later. There seems to be a competition in music journalism to be right…first. Almost like a version of horse betting, a critic wants to be able to say “I liked it before everyone else caught on”. Who are we racing? And what do we win? I’m the first to admit that some of the most important albums of the last ten years…hit me many years later. With time, marination and slow cooking. I think it’s time that we strike out the necessity to review albums as soon as they come out, as an artist’s message, sound and context is often better understood and appreciated many many years down the track

• Global: albums from across the world are surveyed - with both local and international judges taking part in the review process. A bollywood soundtrack should be considered as great as a standout UK hip hop album - if they’re both up to scratch, in their respective categories. Are they the same or even comparable? Kind of, and that’s the beauty of it!
  

Music Inspector’s 5 Album Rating Criteria

Next, let’s transpose the criteria as best as we can 

1. Quality of products: I don’t think we can say universally that the quality of the recording needs to be audiophile grade in order to be deemed high-level. What I interpret this to mean in this case is that the overall package communicates its intended message. If it is a classical performance, perhaps the recording does need to be high calibre and wide in sound. And the instruments and packaging should also reflect that ambition with a level of quality and cohesion. Alternatively, if the album is a low-rent garage rock album, does the evocation of “grit” come across genuinely, or are they just putting their crisp digital vocal through a processor and calling it “vintage sounding” for the sake of it 

2. Mastery of flavour and cooking techniques expression and musicality: flavour and technique are very culinary prerequisites. I wouldn’t say technique is necessarily a musical necessity, it’s more about expression and musicality. Expression DOES have flavour! Keith Richards for example oozed an expression that was masterful in its simplicity - and communicated much more than any technically trained guitarist could muster. Thousands of people have covered Moon River, but why was Frank Ocean’s version special? Because he weaved through the pockets of the jazz standard to create something entirely new in its interpretation. There’s a mastery to that worth rewarding

3. The personality of the chef artist represented in the dining listening experience: a crucial puzzle piece! This doesn’t necessarily mean originality (as I don’t believe being original means it is good), but that the artist successfully communicated their personality. I think that’s the problem with most music that’s put out (and by most, I mean the really bad music that no one hears) - is that the musicians are essentially replicating their favourite artists and not bringing their own soul to the listening experience. It is very difficult and rare for an artist to successfully harness this truth seeking, and when that alchemy occurs, the world must know about it

4. Value for money: With somewhat of a market cap on how much you pay for music - value doesn’t come into the equation for a music listener, so let’s just strike this one out

5. Consistency and coherence as a body of work between inspectors’ visits: Is it a coherent body of work, where each song makes sense to the other in terms of the overall experience? Does it make sense as an album or is it just a collection of songs? Is it an experience? I toyed with the idea of judging the artist’s consistency across albums, but I feel that that’s dangerous territory. BUT, I’m still toying with the idea, because when you look back in music history, sometimes the importance of the work is helped by the context in which it existed, both in culture and the artist’s own journey. Take Neil Young’s Trans (1983), an open exploration on vocoder and synthesisers - a brave leap for the folk-rock god. Is the album great? No, not really. But I feel like points should be awarded for the ambition considering the stakes, even if the triple lutz was a bit wobbly on landing. And if the discography is expansive in depth and breath, perhaps the consistency of artistry is worth a point or two as well. Contextually, a vocoder album is harder to pull off for an established rockstar than say…suburban Timmy with a drum machine bought by his grandma

6. Message and authenticity (new category): Every great album I have ever experienced has something to say. Whether it’s about drug addiction, infatuation, race, or politics. Even ambient albums have a longing that pulls you well beneath the ocean floor. I am very cautious with this category, as this feels the most subjective of the five. But I think we can all agree that great albums are able to really move entire generations because the artist has something truly meaningful and important to say, and has managed to pull off transmitting that to the listener. So it stays in

Here are how the stars could work:

• One star: A very good restaurant album in its category: The word “category” is important here. Let’s take Drake’s “Certified Lover Boy” - definitely not a very good album in its category. Little Simz’s “Sometimes I Might Be Introvert” - is a very good album in its category. If it was 5 tracks shorter, it could potentially be worth more than one star, but it is very, very good and deserves praise

• Two stars: Excellent cooking album, worth a detour your attention: I added “attention” in here because the better the album, usually the more it demands from the listener. It’s not background music - it deserves your attention because it has more than demonstrated that it is significant at this moment in time

• Three stars: Exceptional cuisine album, worth a special journey a lot of time: Some albums deserve multiple listens, whether it’s immediately enjoyable or not. To be a stereotypical music critic - Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band’s “Trout Mask Replica” was that for me. An album that has been revered, that took me many, many listens to really feel locked into what it was trying to communicate. Am I saying that the album is worth three stars? Not necessarily. But I do think being thought-provoking and challenging can often go hand in hand with music that breaks new ground

Lastly, let’s look at the idea of adding and removing of stars. It is much more appropriate to remove stars from restaurants that say, get lazy, or have multiple hairs in multiple soups. But I kind of like the idea of the same happening with music. Opinions do change about certain albums, whether it be through a revision of music culture or public opinion. Take my teen fav The White Stripes for instance. At the time, some of their albums may have deserved multiple stars. Looking back now though, I feel like their impact (should impact be another category??) has lessened as there is only one Jack and Meg White - the sound and stories they produced exist only within their peppermint wallpapered room. To that end, my sense is that their cultural significance has lessened over time, and perhaps only one album would deserve a star or so. Not every album remains great forever - some are the flavour of the month but hindsight informs us that sometimes, that flavour was laced with artificial additives that had us on a sugar-rush for a brief moment.

Conclusion/Digestif

As we pat our lips with a high thread count napkin, it’s time to wrap up this thought exercise.

Will rating, classifying and awarding artistic endeavours ever be accurate? Frankly, it’s impossible - whether it’s for music, food or visual art. Any expression of creativity will be seen through a lens that is shaped by our experiences, influences and tastes. Not to mention, no inspector is adverse to bias, bribery and outside influences.

As with all my newsletters, my argument has plenty of holes, but I think the intention is clear. What I hope for, is that one day a confident publication arises that is unafraid to take its time with music. A publication that respects artists all over the world, and respects the listener, whose palettes deserve more respect. A publication that trades off the celebration of greatness, rather than splitting hairs with a decimal point rating system. A publication that gives the artist their time, and rewards and thanks them for their exceptional contribution to the world.