Adam Balic

Yvonne - well obviously it can't be that the UK has greater exposure to Indian cuisine then the US, the market will out after all. I put it down to an abberation after all, if the marketplace saw these restuarants as worthwhile there would be many more such restuarants. Also, they are in England after all, so they more an variation on British cuisine then actually representing Indian cuisine, which we know has nothing to offer.

Ah, that must be the inference that must be drawn - after several thousand years of gastronomic history they have nothing to offer that is unique, original, or creative. "At Tamarind we pride ourselves on introducing guests to the delights, sophistication and variation of Indian cuisine within a refined and relaxed environment. We are honoured and delighted to be awarded the prestigious Michelin star for the third year". See even cultures with nothing obvious to offer the marketplace can make a real go of it if the invest in decent china, strip their floorboards and lay on the linen.

Fergus - have enjoyed you book a great deal (apart from the recipes, I really enjoyed the interesting photography), hope to enjoy you food first hand one day. The suckling pig you sell feeds 8-10 people I have been told, I am more use to a much smaller pig being cooked, which would feed maybe 1-3 people. What age are you piglets and are they actually 'suckling'? Are they of a particular breed? Also, several times when I have tried to buy suckling pig from various butchers (in Scotland) I have been told that I will have to pay the cost of a whole porker (ie. paying for the potential growth of the pig), is the usual or am I beening given a line by the butcher to save them the bother?

I like Anna del Conte's "The Classic Food of Northern Italy". Interesting recipes, interesting stories.

.

Genetically, a looser then? How sad.

Not off the top of my head, but I still have the jars, if not the jam. I will look the information for you.

Steve keeps are wits sharp, it is the reason why we created him. I am positive that some spicing combinations change the base flavour of the dish. I will think about this phenomena.

I'm sure you will, it's not like they are English players or anything. Beer I think, maybe G&T, which Simon will try to tell you is Gin and It, but he's wrong.

Adam - I think that is a good point. Why don't you name some and see if it differs, and how, from restaurant cooking in that country. Difficult to make the comparison, as there is no restaurant culture to speak of in some of these societies. Indeed, some of these societies ceased to exist before the invention of the 'restaurant'. Difficult to make the comparison, as there is no restaurant culture to speak of in some of these societies. Indeed, some of these societies ceased to exist before the invention of the 'restaurant'. I will happily make a list if you like and in this I would ask the aid of people that have far more knowledge on the subject then me. But, what would be the point, other then to re-state the obvious for many people and to still be un-convincing to you? I get the feeling that no matter what argument or example is presented you will still see food culture in a neo-Darwinian, reductionist and hierarchical manner and from that perspective, what it is 'best' now is that 'best' that has ever been. Will you be an innocent, free from all former cultural, political and personal restraints, can we walk together through the garden of Earthly delights and savour the fruit of all trees equally?

Steve - plenty of cultures have food that is to complex/expensive to be done in the 'home' and require the employment of professional chefs. Some have been discussed on this site even. Why is it that these do not count if they are not being served to certain group of people? Indeed using the same logic, why not turn the argument on its head and say that 'fine dining' doesn't count in terms of food relevance, as it an abberation and not un-representative? This is not a personal or political statement.

From the Plotnicki abridged version of Waverly Root's "The Food of France". Page 4: "Had some simply delightful meals in restaurants, not much else to say really. Oh wait, Sparkling red wine is an abomination".

Too spicy.

Good extra virgin olive oil. It's an ethnic thing.

Agree with you? Very doubtful that is Steve. Been informed on something does very much alter how something tastes, with that added bonus that you know why. This is not a personal and political statement.

Adam - Gee I didn't say this either. You are grabbing positions I've taken on other threads in different contexts and overlaying them on this thread. Steve- Gee, I was just using my amazing powers of prescience . Also, I'm not laughing at you, for all the times I have thought that you are deeply wrong on a particular topic, you have made me re-think my own opinion and that is a good thing. In this particular debate I agree with almost every thing Fatguy has said (he's really sharp that chap) and he says it better, so just re-read that stuff again. BTW - if I did eat at restaurants as much as you and you were as much a scholar as me, just think how lively the debates would be! New Topic: After 200 years at the top is the French culinary tradition becomming less relevant?

Jason as far as I am aware, very few Medieval recipes actually state the amount of spice added to a particular recipe. In one example where amounts are mentioned (Goodman of Paris, see link) the amount of spice used is actually very low, considering the amount of food being prepared. In addition, medieval spice traders were unlikely to sell vacuum packed spices, so it is possible that my of the spices used were less pungent the we might think (Transportation of many spices would have taken months). From what I have seen of Medieval recipes, heavily salted meats were soaked or par-boiled to remove the salt. Irrespective of this, much of the meat was used fresh, not salted. Spices have not left British cooking, but the types of spices used changes dramatically over time and the amounts used do too. Goodman of Paris edit: forgot link!

Well, how would you account for the fairly universal preference for spiced food (using the more general definition of "spice" to include herbs, onions and chiles)? Well for instance the theroy could be in part correct, plant X indeed aids survival of a population that eats it (there are a few reports of Chimps eating ash to allow them to eat toxic plants for instance). Over time the part of the population that develop a taste for eating plant X are more 'fit' and wax and multiple and cover the earth. No problem with this, except that it is too general a theory. Consider Plants Y and Z who taste similar to plant X, but have no 'aid survival properties'. If a populartion is selected for a taste in X they are also going to be selected for a taste in Y and Z, which do not aid survival. Just because there may be a case of spice (ie. Onion and mint family really) acting as an antibacterial in a given popualtion doesn't mean that a different population uses completely un-related spices for the same reason. Or the same population uses different spices for that matter. The universal taste for spices could be simply that present human populations have been sellected on the basis for a preference for eating members of the onion family, all other spices could just be 'onion analogues'. Out of all the thousands of spice flavourings used by people I wonder how many actually are eaten in sufficient quantities to have a benificial effect? Plus this should be a universal phenomena if true, so were is the data from animal populations?

Zarzuela, according to Marina Chang in Tastes of the Pyrenees, is taliored to either the chef's preferences in fish and seafood or to whatever is fresh. Zarzuela means operetta and every Catalan chef tried to dazzle diners with their compositions. It is, perhaps, not possible to have too great a combination of fish and seafood, assuming your taste runs that way. I have read that "Zarzuela" is named after the operetta (which in turn is named after a town of that name), so it is rather like "Peach Melba" (although not named after and individual, in the case of the soup/stew), rather then trying to be a culinary operetta?

Actually, you said this. And it may be easier for people to understand what you are saying, if you understood the difference between "direct' and "inverse" correlations. What you said above is that the higher the level of spicing, the higher the quality of the [primary] ingredient. I'm sure you didn't mean that. The problem I have with the statement is that you would consider only one culinary tradition to have successfully worked our proper 'balance' and evidence of this is either the "free market" or the opinions of people that eat in the 'best' restaurants in the world. Neither of these groups is in a position to judge "prope[r]ly balanced spicing", outside a particular context.

For those who are interested, here is a link to site discussing the publications on spice and antibacterial activity. spice

Oh, I know what the artical was trying to say. I just think that it is far to much of a long bow to draw, as salting and fermentation techniques are likely to be the main methods of preserving meat/fish even in hot countries, a significant contribution of anti-microbial spices in termss of natural selection on a human population is a very far fetched.

At the moment in the cupboard I have: -Jasmine rice, both good stuff and 'broken rice'. -several different types of risotto rice, I prefer Carnaroli though. - French Carmague Red rice. No idea what it tastes like. -Short grained Sushi rice. -Basmati rice. Which I like, but have been unable to find a type that I like in the UK.

No fair Steve, you are changing the goal posts! In the case of BB, the addition of spice is one factor that achieves the end balance of fishy strained soupy + whole filleted French perfection. Spice prevides part of the balance, therefore spice is a good thing in the correct context and that stuff about "direct correlation to the quality of the ingredients and the level of spicing applied", misses the point.

Adam - Good try. Can't say why those soups are not the match of bouillabaisse but the choices aren't many . There is the type of fish used, and the technique to prepare them. What makes a BB a BB is the straining, balance of vegetables to spicing, and serving the fish whole and fileted, not cut up as part of the stew. Sounds like BB is a fish curry to me and is beside the point of the topic, which is: if you remove the spice (saffron/fennel/orange peel, all or some of these) from BB then you have the inferior soups (as a Plotnickist, not a Balician construct) that you find all over the Med., therefore, spice is a good thing.