a recent post and an email

Hoo boy! This reminds me of one of my first posts to Therapy, the "Complexity vs. Purity" troll now lost in the mists of time.

Mark Lipton
 
and here all i was mainly reacting to was a recounting of a menu that seemed to have neither complexity nor purity. just a whole lot of clutter.
 
I love Indian food so i like using multiple spices etc. so when i received marcella's first two books as presents when I graduated college, I avoided making any of her recipes because I thought "they are so simple they can't be any good." But i read her words on building flavors and ingredients, etc, and then i finally made a couple of things and whoa nelly - they were great.

Her squab soup is particularly terrific.
 
So people don't want the "perfect turbot dish". Or if they do, once they've eaten it, they will want turbot cooked in a different way. Because what drives people in these fields is innovation, difference, development, fashion, trend. Those concepts will always trump the notion of a static perfection, and that's why restaurants which innovate, even for the sake of it, will always be more hightly rated amongst dining hobbyists than those who do the "simple" things well.

- Tony Finch

A great quote. Not 100% right but not 100% wrong, either.
 
Meh. Isn't that Plotnicki's favorite line?

Also, it's rather disingenuous in the way it smoothly elides the eaters ("once they've eaten it") and the cooks ("people in these fields"). And I think that's the crux of the matter, actually: eating in and eating out are very different things.
 
originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
Meh. Isn't that Plotnicki's favorite line?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'm big enough to look past that.

Also, it's rather disingenuous in the way it smoothly elides the eaters ("once they've eaten it") and the cooks ("people in these fields"). And I think that's the crux of the matter, actually: eating in and eating out are very different things.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. It is distinctly talking about 'eating at a restaurant', not 'eating at home'.

My point is that we're not all still using Brillat-Savarin's recipes. We've wriggled our way onward, not lacking respect for them, but simply because novelty has its own value.

Gee, I know this is a board full of tradition-minded winos but come on.
 
originally posted by maureen:
I love Indian food so i like using multiple spices etc. so when i received marcella's first two books as presents when I graduated college, I avoided making any of her recipes because I thought "they are so simple they can't be any good." But i read her words on building flavors and ingredients, etc, and then i finally made a couple of things and whoa nelly - they were great.

Her squab soup is particularly terrific.
Click to expand...

I finally learned to cook fish properly from her. And her apple fritters are so easy and so good. Though they do set off my smoke alarm.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
Meh. Isn't that Plotnicki's favorite line?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'm big enough to look past that.

Also, it's rather disingenuous in the way it smoothly elides the eaters ("once they've eaten it") and the cooks ("people in these fields"). And I think that's the crux of the matter, actually: eating in and eating out are very different things.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. It is distinctly talking about 'eating at a restaurant', not 'eating at home'.

My point is that we're not all still using Brillat-Savarin's recipes. We've wriggled our way onward, not lacking respect for them, but simply because novelty has its own value.

Gee, I know this is a board full of tradition-minded winos but come on.
Click to expand...

I like creative cooking, but I think in some quarters (and this is not aimed at you, Jeff), different matters more than anything else. The problem seems to be exacerbated by young chefs who riff on a classic dish without ever having mastered the classic dish. In general, I find that the most successful innovations come from those who really understand the fundamentals. I guess I'm tired of seeing a "deconstructed" X from a young chef who is highly touted by the foodie cognoscenti that offers none of the pleasure of the original X because the chef doesn't understand X.

Part of the problem seems to be that many of the young chefs and foodies never had exposure to some classic dishes and dismiss them because they were "dated" and stodgy long before they were old enough to ride a bike, much less have any level of discernment about food. In music or fashion, "retro" has a certain appeal that can be a mark of "coolness" among younger consumers to a much greater degree than I tend to see in the world of fine dining. The irony is it seems that many of the most ardent critics of styles of cuisine that were revered in the past only know them by reputation or from the few restaurants that have survived without changing too much and cater to older diners but which in my experience have often let their standards slip, since many of the classics haven't been a fixture in the fine dining scene for more than 20 years, so these styles really would be new to the critics who haven't really experienced them first-hand.

I realize that I'm painting with a broad brush, and it may be that I've already reached the "get off my lawn" stage at the age of 43. I may also be compensating for feeling insecure about making and serving a stodgy sauce with roast beef this weekend (the original fond tasted charred and I made too much roux for the limited stock of demiglace I had on hand, so the sauce was glossier and thicker than I would have liked, though the addition of lots of fresh browned mushrooms deglazed with red wine, mustard, and a little vinegar saved it from a flavor perspective). Geography may also play a role, as in Atlanta you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a new Neapolitan pizza or gourmet burger joint, but good luck finding a restaurant that serves well-made classic French dishes.
 
originally posted by Mike Evans:
In music or fashion, "retro" has a certain appeal that can be a mark of "coolness" among younger consumers to a much greater degree than I tend to see in the world of fine dining.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But there's a strong current of retro appeal in the trend towards updating and fancifying American comfort food classics.
 
originally posted by Mike Evans:
Part of the problem seems to be that many of the young chefs and foodies never had exposure to some classic dishes and dismiss them because they were "dated" and stodgy long before they were old enough to ride a bike, much less have any level of discernment about food.
Click to expand...
I have heard this said about modern wine critics and drinkers, too. Given the eye-popping prices on First Growths and Grand Crus, who today knows them well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top