Steve Klc

Steve--when you write "it's the extent of the impact that is being questioned" I think you should also add that it is our own ability to assess and comprehend Adria which is being questioned as well. I'd say his target is your mouth AND your mind, Bux. And that two-pronged journey might be why assessing Ferran is so problematic. Intelligent, perceptive and experienced diners aren't used to being so challenged in the post-nouvelle era by a chef, they've never had to confront a chef with such an intellect. They're used to reading about a signature dish or restaurant and travelling to experience that signature dish in situ. Going back to this Golden Age of the 70's and early 80's, which many on this thread long for, you essentially had a dozen chefs yearn for a new freedom in their own way but all hew to similarly embraced general tenets--lighten dishes, rely on natural sweetness in ingredients rather than add alot of processed sugar, etc. I could list them but we all know them. Diners understood that all of these French chefs were still cooking French--and looking back, as an armchair diner, it's pretty easy to see now that what they were doing wasn't so special, so revolutionary after all. Bras and Veyrat and Roellinger can easily be seen as logical extensions of this--they belong--and while Gagnaire comes closest to Adria in terms of experimentation, embracing the science behind the food, exploring shock value, he can arguably still be seen as stretching what it means to be French. Adria climbed higher, in a bigger way and I'd argue offers a unique challenge to our sense and sensibilities. Precisely because he is not French and never has had that baggage to carry around. Also, we are all much more knowledegable, much more experienced airmchair critics now. I suspect "nouvelle" was more easily understood then because you had a group of mythic leading lights which you could put into a context, a framework called French cuisine. You were conditioned, in other words, to embrace it, to process it. It made sense to you. As I see it, and as I sense Shaw and Bux see it, the great challenge to this generation of knowledgeable diners--who have invested all that time in learning already, and who want to enjoy the fruits of their past labors trying to synthesize what it was that made a Robuchon, a Bocuse, a Ducasse, a Thomas Keller, a Daniel Boulud special--is not to resent being challenged yet again. What I take away from this thread so far is not the fear of learning anything new--but some justified trepidation at not quite knowing how to assess a truly unique figure, Adria, and his impact on chefs and dining--because he brings so much to the table in ways which surpass all of our previous assumptions of individual culinary "genius". It's scary for some of us to consider that someone could redefine our sense of "genius" and "visionary" and "chef." A few of you want to understand why, as a chef, I seem so accepting, so comfortable in touting Adria's brilliance--and I promise to try to explain it better.

Robert--short answer--diminished. That round of articles two years ago--when Food Arts first mentioned Adria, took note of Albert and his pastry book, then Gourmet and Esquire ran their pieces, the Time and Newsweek crowd had their pieces--let's call this the first wave. The chefs had, of course, already beaten a path to El Bulli since the early 90's. So Adria had influenced countless chefs already, for going on a decade. It just took the media a while to catch up. But your larger point, I think, is very valid--that there has been a drop-off of "Adria" pieces in the mainstream and we've entered the second wave: Spain itself is discovered, that there are other three-star Michelin chefs there doing interesting things, etc. I've already predicted elsewhere that this will not end until paella is as ubiquitous in the US as risotto. Inclusive in this is that the French are playing catch-up on the world stage. For the third wave, I expect a big renewal of interest in Adria as his 10 year anniversary/retrospective book comes out and Albert's new plated dessert book comes out--both this Fall and both in English. Plus, I expect you'll start to hear more about the entrepreneurial side of Adria, more product, licensing, consulting and global business stories. He'll "out Ducasse" Ducasse, "out Bocuse" Bocuse. He's already clearly the most innovative, scientific and creative chef--but I expect that opinion to continue to be solidified as well, even within France and England, who aren't quite able to admit that, but for different reasons. Naysayers at the moment will realize Adria's food actually tasted soulful and satisfying all along--or as Bux says "Don't make the mistake of thinking Adria can't punch right thorough to your pleasure center." And, his creativity and vision will make more inroads at the lower end, the more popular end of food and dining as well. This will really throw Steve P. for a loop because none of the influence as a result of the third wave will require making the trek to El Bulli to dine! I keep missing your posts Steve, sorry. But the short answer to "describe why he thinks that people are going to flock to eat this type of cuisine unless mere foodie civilians report that they had among the greatest, that is great as in delicious, not great as in most interesting, meal of their lives?" is that I think chefs are on this arc at the moment--embracing what Adria really has to teach them or show them about their art and craft--and eventually we'll get to the point where not only the most talented chefs, doing the most interesting work in the best food cities will have been able to process Adria through their system, to internalize him so to speak but all of their sous chefs and line cooks will have as well. As a chef, Adria makes you see things differently and can change the course of your professional career. It starts with Jose Andres coming to the US, then the Trotter/Keller/Palladin level of US chef goes, then the Rick Tramonto and Ken Oringer level goes--which is where we're at now--but then it filters down even to the level of interns and stagiares from those kitchens, or like how David Bouley sent his team to El Bulli, who come back from their El Bulli enlightenment, impact their restaurant or get a new job and start getting in the papers themselves. Call this the Will Goldfarb/Alex Urena level. We're just waiting for all of this to coalesce, to gel a bit more, but I'm betting it will Steve. And that would render moot all this talk about the travelling to Spain for Adria's cuisine. It will be alot closer than you think.

At your level of understanding, Steve, yes it seems your "choices are coming down to having a mixed radish salad at Craft that is ultra-fresh as they got the radishes at the greenmarket that morning, or to go to some faraway place to have a dish composed of the essence, foam, dust, and sorbet of various radishes." Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope, in time, to convince you you'll have many more rewarding options. Marcus--what would happen to the perception of Modern classical music, and its marginalization, if a figure of Mozartean creativity and vision were to come along, prompting such a siesmic shift in sense and sensibility that both the marginalized few and popular masses who listen to nothing written since the first Mozart are both jerked from their comfortable realities? You say eloquently that "Matisse and Charlie Parker were new, but still well within the parameters of emotional impact that make for great music and art." What if we have only felt the first ripple or two of Adria jumping into the water--and will still have waves and waves yet to roll over us on both the high and low end? If that's the case, Steve, then in answer to "Does this mean that 50 years from now my grandchildren, who will be old enough to have children of their own, will serve my great-grandchildren foamed bacon and eggs?" I'd have to say no. It will happen alot sooner than that. You'll foam that dish up yourself 10 years from now.

Bruce--track that Gourmet issue down. It's much more in depth and a much better written summary of the 2001 workshop. With respect to "molecular gastronomy," I think I've argued that he seems more a media-savvy johnny-come-lately who has embraced an emerging term rather than a true innovator like Ferran. That McGee, Kurti and This and yes, Barham broke the real ground a decade, at least, before Heston even heard the term molecular gastronomy, before he started eating around the best kitchens of Europe and then at some point in the late 90's--'99 perhaps, Blumenthal made that fateful telephone call to Barham, asked a question about salt and vegetables and forged a media partnership of savvy and skilled UK chef and scientist. I'm happy he's bringing attention to this aspect of cooking because it has the potential to help us all--even home cooks. I believe in one of our earlier threads on Heston, Cabrales linked to all those Guardian articles, but thank you for the link to your site. It's nice to have them all in one place. But those partnerships between scientist and elite chef had begun to form by '92 in France and in the case of Ferran, well, he had laid some serious groundwork and innovation by himself and his team a decade earlier, a decade before the English media began trumpeting the genius of one of their own, as well. Perhaps because of this thread, Blumenthal's "idiosyncratic and passionate approach to cooking" can be justly "heralded as the biggest shake-up to British cookery in 50 years" and, at the same time, put in proper global perspective if readers should care to explore more deeply. I just don't want history to be re-written in the course of celebrity myth-making. I think the "Adria-imitator" is another issue--apart from the context of this article. Hundreds and hundreds of thoughtful, talented chefs on the international scene are Adria-influenced. Adria-influenced is no crime--in fact, it is homage, an honor--and the best chefs emulate each other all the time. But let's not forget Heston is now a Michelin two-star chef and from reports on this site, from palates I trust, clearly can cook very well, indeed. If anyone is interested in trying to nail down techniques, concepts, ingredient combinations, we can try. Some of it has been discussed before on this site--some of the charges are red herrings in my opinion and miss the point--so start with a search to catch up. What's come out recently--the creative genius behind mustard ice cream, the tobacco, the bacon and eggs, pop rocks, et al--I'm confident we can find numerous examples of their usage pre-dating Heston's latest forays. I had mustard ice cream from a French-trained Japanese chef years ago. Bacon and eggs was a famous dessert at the French Laundry years, and two pastry chefs ago. Ferran had bacon and eggs in dessert before that. My friend Jose Andres used pop rocks in desserts at Cafe Atlantico in DC five years ago at least; years ago Michel Richard had a famous dessert 'Romeo & Juliet' with a tobacco-infused creme anglaise ice cream, prune and armagnac and several other French chefs, Conticini included, had their own tobacco usage which was widely emulated. The common theme of the resentment, if there is any among knowledgeable diners, is that too many of these ideas or concepts or outright dishes are begged, borrowed but not quite stolen by Heston, and allowed to proliferate as original ideas by an uncritical and unknowing local media. That's also a separate issue from this thread and article--and I've come down on both sides of the fence--defending Heston against some charges and calling attention to errors in fact or perception on others. I also see this as a way to understand better what creative chefs everywhere are doing--and a few of them happen to read and post on this site. As far as one's knowledge of Ferran's techniques, well, that's another issue as well--but start by reading through the Spain threads or do a search. Many knowledgeable eGulleteers have commented on Ferran, reported on his techniques, menus and his dishes. You could also read his cookbooks for recipes and techniques, there are 3 that I know of and Balaguer's book is really an "Adria" book, so 4, and you don't have to have eaten at his restaurant to begin to form some idea of what it is he's trying to do. And Ferran makes it easy for you as well--every article that's ever been written about him is scanned and available on his media website. Enjoy. The Restaurant article gives him, and just about everyone else I've mentioned, short shrift however, hence this thread. Readers can be catholic or provincial and make up their own mind if so motivated. And then perhaps we can speculate whether a chef's public promotion of "molecular gastronomy,"of the processes involved, diverts too much attention away from what should be the more important aspects of food and dining? The Restaurant magazine article concludes with a quote from Coleman: "It's not about bringing attention to particular people." For some, therein lies the rub. That's exactly what it seems to be about. That, and entertainment value.

Bux--I have no problem with a provincial puff piece serving a certain audience. This purports to give an overview of the international scene and to "uncover the flavours, formulas and personnel pushing the food and science envelope." Those quoted-- Heston, Barham and Gerard Coleman--are all English and that isn't problematic for me, either. The article would have been stronger--and less objectionable to me--if the writer focused solely on what these chefs and scientists do, how they work together and the role "molecular gastronomy" plays in the course of their professional work. But, if you're going to enlarge the scope and name names internationally, you may as well get the players, the proper historical context and their significance right. Here's the first question I'd ask--how can anyone write an article purportedly about "molecular gastronomy" and not mention the Annual International Workshop on Molecular & Physical Gastronomy--it's somewhat significant, first held in Sicily in 1992 and founded by Kurti and This. In 1969 Kurti was saddened that "one knows better the temperature in the center of stars than in the heart of the soufflés" and really started pushing for this. Let's not forget Herve This started writing monthly columns on molecular gastronomy around 1990, including a very famous piece in 1994 about the subject in the US magazine "Scientific American." This is alot of material to overlook. Here's a link to the '97 biennial workshop--among those in attendance, Pierre Herme, Christian Conticini, Herve This, Hal McGee, Shirley Corriher, Peter Barham and oh, by the way, chef Shaun Hill lectured: http://www.ccsem.infn.it/ccsem97/kurti.html Here's the next program from '99, Pierre Gagnaire, and there's Shaun Hill again, his lecture that year was to be "What the chef de cuisine means by taste" http://www.ccsem.infn.it/ccsem99/Gastronomy99.html May, 2001 was the 5th workshop, a report appeared in Gourmet magazine (USA) afterward and was mentioned here on eGullet. Heston was involved with Barham at this workshop. I've just received a copy of the article, I'll try to read it tonight.

Andy--I think if you dig you'll discover that not only has Shaun "attended" the workshop but he was asked to lecture and "present" at the workshop several times. Quite an achievement and honor for Shaun. Big difference being an invited contributor--as Shaun was--and being an attendee. Does the article mention how many times Heston has been invited to lecture on his own groundbreaking theories or techniques at the summit rather than attend and learn from others?

CathyL--thanks for this lead. There can be nothing more hilarious, however, than a magazine placing Heston alongside the likes of Adria and then saying "Insiders, we're told, 'say the confident French chef Philippe Conticini at Petrossian is the next one to watch.'" "Next" being the operative word. Duh, people in the know have been watching what Philippe has been doing by combining flavors and creating new ones long before Heston glommed onto the scene. They're aware that Philippe has already published one book of groundbreaking dessert sensibilities and is working one another, that he's received laudatory international restaurant, newspaper and magazine coverage by Gault-Millau, Thuries and the New York Times among others , and even the fact that last year Philippe was chosen as the President and head of France's World Cup pastry team. (A true insider would even know how prestigious it was for Philippe to be so honored--to be up on stage alongside 15 other supreme French master pastry chefs--all of them MOF's, with red, white and blue ringing the collars of their chef's jackets--all except for Philippe. The only non-MOF.) And of all the perfunctory adjectives one might choose to stick in front of Philippe's name--confident would be way down the list. Try gentle, sincere, humble, sweet, generous, passionate, sensitive. Philippe loves Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Forrest Gump for gosh sakes! But I guess I may be too much of an insider, so what do I know. What the writer and editor reveal (sorry Restaurant gang, nothing personal, you blew this one) is that they know (or care) absolutely nothing about the significance of Philippe Conticini on the larger European and world stage nor the Conticini brothers (yes, Philippe's brother Christian is a chef, too, and active in support of MG) nor their much more longstanding relationship with Herve This and Nicholas Kurti, who first put the developing Molecular Gastronomy movement on the map for Heston to read. So did McGee. Was Shaun Hill mentioned in this piece? Perhaps these are the same insiders who helped the magazine compose their best restaurants in the world list. If you have the time, Cathy or Andy, I'd appreciate it if you'd excerpt a few more passages from this presumably errant drivel so I can build more of the case against.

Dave--welcome. I have to admit I chuckled just a bit with "this is the last discussion board I would have expected to find socio-political discussions." I hope eGullet continues to surpass your expectations.

Good observations Bux. Unfortunately, what she wrote may have been condensed or edited down and in final form ended up like what, 600-700 words? Your thoughtful and in depth response alone might be 1,000 words. (Do we have a "word count" feature in this software Shaw?) Would that Katy have had that much freedom. Maybe I'm just in an uncharacteristically charitable mood today but this was a mainstream piece--yes the equivalent of a 5 o'clock news bite in the grand scheme of things culinary--but even the 5 o'clock news is capable of putting an issue or concern on someone's radar prompting them to look elsewhere for some more in depth information. Like to eGullet. Each of the specific examples she mentions would fill up threads here on their own. In fact, we could do tens of thousands of words on any individual topic--balsamic, key limes, Chilean sea bass, etc--while she had a few hundred to survey them all. Somewhat vague means they're trying--and is still good in my book as long as it isn't intentionally obtuse, deliberately biased or designed to mis-inform. Somewhat vague means there's a need for things like Ed Behr's Art of Eating (when he's not assessing the significance of Heston Blumenthal that is) and for us to post at eGullet. I'm glad there is that need. Plus, I have to admit I have different expectations from Katy and a piece like this in the WSJ than a comparable piece in our national paper of record. (I know, I'm being charitable.)

I'm going to stop posting on this thread for awhile Steve, not out of any sense of frustration or disinterest--quite the contrary my friend!--but just that I'd like to give Robert and Lizziee and Bux and Shaw and everyone else a chance to weigh in and impact the direction of this before I continue. You've raised interesting points--I may have as well--and I want this to be operatic in scale rather than a duet within an opera. If it turns out there's a chorus lined up against me, fine. That just means I have to work on my form and my vocal technique a bit more. I leave you with this: are vision, a way of seeing things, and freedom, a way of combining things, "techniques" in your book Steve? They're not in my book--speaking as a chef--techniques are merely tools, like equipment--a means to an end. I continue to ask: if a dish tastes good why bring up media-constructs like esoteric, cerebral and discriminating? Why is it so important to have expectation of "form"? What if what Adria wants to accomplish is the complete surrendering of a diner--surrendering of expectation and of form, the complete removal of classic or standardized dishes prepared over and over and over again? Eat and experience the joy of the moment--don't qualify it, try to repeat the same experience over again, don't try to seek a "better" one or more "classic" one based on outmoded values you bring to the table. Why is it problematic for you not to know how something is going to come to the table? You say "But it doesn't ring true to me that the natural outgrowth of Ferran Adria isn't a cuisine based on his technique. And what cuisine have you ever heard of that doesn't have signature dishes?" In true eGullet fashion, I'd say define technique--does it include spirit, vision and freedom? And just because there may not have been a "cuisine" without individual signature dishes doesn't mean a revolutionary thinker or creator can't appear to disrupt how we see things from now on. Here's how I see Adria: techniques--some new, some classic--freely utilized in the service of a revolutionary chef's vision, creativity, spirit. Gagnaire and Blumenthal and American chefs like Keller, Trotter, Jose Andres, Ken Oringer, Rick Tramonto and on and on all have access to Ferran's techniques and have all eaten at each other's restaurants (well, most probably not at the Fat Duck). How it all shakes out and the overall impact on dining and our approach to food and to eating remains to be seen. Some will undoubtedly have fond remembrance for things past. But it is not technique that the wisest of these chefs are emulating or co-opting from Ferran--unless you include spirit, freedom and vision in your definition. It's just the easiest and most accessible aspect to focus in on. My guess is there are alot of chefs in and out France who have these feelings, this creativity innately--and are just now realizing they too can stretch the bounds, they too can cook more personally, more freely. And I think you are definitely seeing more French chefs within France showing the courage to go farther toward this new direction--this loosening of bounds and boundaries and expectations piled on their shoulders from eras gone by. They may not articulate it in conversation or admit it publicly--but why do you think the talk is of a Conticini or Gagnaire or Herme or Barbot et al? I think it's because to one degree or another each is aiming for freedom in ways Adria has already pushed far beyond what's previously been possible within France. And Robert--I just re-read your initial post and boy, there are so many good issues, factors and predictions you have highlighted "still out there" it is hard to know where to start or even to embrace them all. I think what I'd like to ask you is how much of this change in direction and emphasis might...might...be attributed to or influenced by what has been happening in America on the culinary scene? I'll conclude by saying I think it is always best to look to the dishes themselves--give yourself over to the dishes--and all else will become clear in time.

Of all the aspects of this article, the one I found most interesting--most vague--and most worth following up on was the" Argentine beef end around by way of Australia angle." Somebody's going to get in trouble for that one--the writer, the source, the distributor or the aide responsible for the loophole in the bill or regulation. And Shaw--not only are we tending toward stricter controls--there's a good bit of dissent within the EU as well on this and other cheese issues. I also don't think we can have too many of these articles which try to raise awareness--even if due to length restrictions the subjects can't be explored with the depth that some of us may prefer. Battling ignorance and raising awareness--of chefs and of the general public--has to start somewhere and in all, I appreciated the article even though it might not have been the most nuanced or original. For what it was trying to accomplish, it succeeded well, I thought.

Steve--why does something have to be obvious and why care what diners could tell visually? Just because something--anything--is not obvious in no way means it is a mistake. Unless you say it does. That's external and something you're imposing on the dish. Your choice, but again, you're the one making a mistake. I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse and not grasping your larger points. I still posit that the notion of specific "classic" dishes is gone now, it's a quaint and irrelevant search for meaning that isn't there anymore--and when you speak of the high end--like an Adria he transcends the concept. That's why he is pre-eminent. It's a media construct now--like a reporter asking "what are your signature dishes?" For Adria, to be boxed in by a few classic dishes would be the worst imaginable insult. The worst limitation of one's mind and talent and abilities as a chef. If you think what Adria has contributed is new technique I'm afraid the boat has sailed without you. I hope it doesn't get too far from shore when you finally realize it isn't about creating classic dishes or establishing classic combinations anymore. Adria could do 10 different versions of "Salmon a l'Oiseille, Homard a Vanille, and of course the infamous Pommes Puree" if he wanted to--in ways their creators could not have imagined in their time--each wonderful, each different. That's what Adria brings to the table, that's what his influence and significance is and that is what is being emulated by chefs around the world who "get it." Not "technique," not foam. Focusing on that is as limiting as trying to create a "classic" dish! Robert--when you speculated that most of the "jury members would likely be carried away with the novelty, construction, or ersatz or exotic ingredients as opposed to the disciplined classicism of the designated chef of yore" how do you slot the deconstructed clam chowder or the other dishes I've talked about--which use no ingredients NOT in the classic dish and which, when eaten, explode with the flavors of "clam chowder" in ways not previously imagined? If that happens--if you have that experience, that visceral reaction--does it matter what technique, what form, what skills presumably were employed to achieve it? And if you ever have that example--Jose's deconstructed clam chowder--and it works, composed here in the States by a former employee of Ferran's at El Bulli from ten years ago--as I can assure you it does--then what further proof, what further demonstration of how well Adria's approach to cooking travels beyond his restaurant do you need?

Steve--ask yourself this--is the potato foam in that dish any different than a classic tomato sorbet on a composed salad, which has been done for decades? Both retain an essence--a surprising, delightful perhaps unreal amount of flavor in a form that appears unnatural to an inexperienced diner--or illogical to an experienced diner just new to the "form." Now--if you believe the tomato sorbet to fall into the same category of elements which you find incongruous, unnatural and illogical--then my point is invalid. But I don't think you do. The minute diners start telling chefs what is and what is not natural those diners are in trouble. You're beginning to close doors in around yourself and next you will close your mind. (This is in the larger context--apart from diners simply voting with their feet and choosing not to eat at restaurants where the style of the chef doesn't suit them--that's an inalienable right and I hope you know what I mean by this. You also have every right to wax poetic for times gone by. I mean this in the "I only eat bistro food because bistro food is simple and plain and good and that's the kind of food which appeals to me, that's what food should be and not the Michelin madness which is so overpriced and pretentious blah blah blah.) Back to your potato foam--the starch in the potato which supposedly is "gone" is in fact still there, it helps give body and texture to the foam in the way a tomato's natural sweetness and gelatin impart body and texture to a cold tomato sorbet. And external form doesn't necessarily reveal anything about flavor or interest. There was a certain chef once who combined vanilla with lobster which had to seem so unnatural and illogical and unclassic to some observers at the time, no? Until they tasted the dish. Now lobster and vanilla is de rigueur. Just because the usage and the final "deconstructed" dish don't seem classic doesn't mean that the dish is strange, disrespectful or an affront to what came before in any way. My fear is it seems you're applying something external, ascribing some motive or some assumption which isn't necessarily there in the deconstruction itself nor in the personality of the modern chefs themselves. Adria doesn't operate under any burden to do anything that he doesn't feel is natural for him to do as an artist and craftsman. He's the culinary version of "I'm OK, you're OK." Your stance also might imply the lessons learned from previous generations have not been incorporated into the dishes or combinations or techniques currently used. Are you prepared to go that far? (This is also not to say media hasn't had an effect on the modern era nor on the modality of modern dining--and chefs have been known to play to the media in countless large and small ways. But media had an effect on previous generations, classic chefs and classic dishes as well. Myth, mystique, terroir, stasis, cooking of place--all were cultivated media concepts.) Just because the media says Adria's or Conticini's or Gagnaire's or Jose Andres's cuisine and palate is so technical and challenging doesn't mean it has to be seen that way--or that they're conciously trying to do things differently for difference's sake. It's like formal service in a high end restaurant--it doesn't have to be seen as stuffy and haughty if it is done well, done smoothly and professionally--unless of course it is stuffy and haughty! Adria and Andres are still Spanish chefs. Sample Jose's deconstructed tortilla or omelete with potato foam--or his clam chowder which would really blow your mind-- and then say if it isn't the best thing you've tasted. All these things highlight individual ingredients in intense interesting ways you never thought possible as a diner. Keller in his own way aims for this as well. Like you always knew bacon was in a clam chowder right, but it was part of a whole taste--it was in every spoonful, infused into the cream, in the background never in the forefront. I ask you, why, in a modern deconstructed clam chowder, which Jose serves on a flat plate with whole raw clams enrobed in a gelee of clam juice, with potato foam among other elements and then sprinkles a fine crunchy powder of bacon over the dish--is this unnatural, illogical? It's his version of "Baco Bits!" End of story. It works or doesn't work--the flavors blend and wrap around themselves in your mouth or they don't. If they don't, then the deconstructed dish with these flourishes--flourishes which seem novel to you--is simply not a good dish. It's not indicative of a huge step forward, not symptomatic of a decline, not a grand statement, not sending me longing for a previous era and not an errant salvo in some generational warfare. The modern cuisine in any era has always been seen as experimental, revolutionary or evolutionary. Each era viewed its changes as an improvement--an advancement. You'd think we'd be used to upheaval by now. You've said the true test of an Adria, whether he'd be seen as a trendy blip on the culinary radar or instead as massively significant will come in time--when those he's mentored have gone out in the world and make a name for themselves and other chefs start emulating him. Well, you're living in that time now. Don't fight it. Remember what it was like watching Magic and Bird? Then Jordan? Did you argue and compare and long for the days of Cousy and Russell (not that you are old enough--you know what I mean) or were you able to live in the moment and appreciate how lucky you were to live in their era and see them play live? Well, Adria is Bird, Magic and Jordan all rolled up into one. He's just begun to play. And why is it so hard to say we're now entering an era where there are no more "classic" dishes because that term, that concept is too limiting? That "classic dish" has perhaps become a construct from an era gone by? Those nouvelle French masters established a freedom to cook and see things differently from the previous generation--but a freedom that wasn't so entirely free, there still were boundaries of form and culture and Frenchness. This is what a Conticini speaks to when he says he loves America's spirit--it's the spirit to freely innovate in flavor and form. Why is it so hard to embrace that what Adria has shown these French masters is simply a way to be truly free? It also may be that you are guilty of some of the same conservative sense and rigid sensibilities that has been holding modern French cooking back--that modern French chefs are now rebelling against slowly but surely? As to the others issues--the teasing, palate orientation, tasting menus having an influence which Robert, Lizziee and you mention, yes I agree wholeheartedly it is having an effect on more than just perception in this era. How much, I'm not sure. Food media, dissemination of information in the internet age and culinary literacy are all having effect as well. So, too Bux's undeniable observation the rest of the world has caught up in an area in which the French once ruled supreme. And you really see the complexity of how all this can blur together when you read accounts of how ingenious and creative a Heston Blumenthal is, from supposedly knowledgeable authorities, who should know his lauded catch-phrase "molecular gastronomy" existed long before he put it on his website and that Adria, actual scientists, researchers and science writers like This, Kurti, McGee et al plowed virtually every square inch of ground he now walks on. As a complete aside--Robert--I'd like to know why you think it was easy to see the Chapel-trained chef had immensely more technique and skill than Morimoto?

Yes RSM, Kats is indeed coming back to DC, I have "heard" to help Jose open his newest restaurant Zaytinya--his take on Greek and Turkish cooking--on October 14th. It's quite nice of you to mention Kats's ability to "throw down." I had a meal once at his hands in Douglas Rodriguez's Pipa, when he was chef de cuisine there for a time, that he made very special. In addition to Jaleo and El Bulli--he also ran the kitchen of Cafe Atlantico down here in DC, which under Jose's direction was turning out the most interesting food in the city. and by mentioning Kaz and his efforts at your NYC restaurant you do Ferran a great honor--by helping to further establish him as mentor and influence worldwide. It's something that will come out in time and something the Ferran naysayers and skeptics have been asking for here on eGullet from day one. Ferran mentors Jose and in turn Jose's sous chefs go forth in the world and do interesting things. Chefs make the pilgrimage to el bulli and return re-energized. The honest ones will speak of this debt publicly. thank you for taking the time to add this. and as for your spelling--do you realize what time it is?

You could? Several chefs have been experimenting with spraying flavor--into mouths before a bite, into the air--seems Ferran has actually moved one of his ideas and a product forward. Googling turns up a translated release from Grocer's Review: "New in Spain are El Bulliolor air fresheners said to alter or enhance food flavour. They are to be sprayed on the table while eating and are intended to alter the food flavour through the sense of smell. They have been created by Ferrán Adriá, the top Spanish head chef of El Bulli restaurant (Gerona, Spain). They are said to be very intense, but the smell disappears quickly so it does not influence the following dish. There are four variants: Bosc Humit, a humid forest scent to accompany mushrooms; Mar, a marine scent to accompany oysters; Taronja, an orange scent; and Taronja en Flor, an orange blossom scent to accompany pumpkins." I have my doubts about it not influencing the following dish, but we'll have to wait and see. Why don't you fill us in on espesso?

It seems likely a few eGullet-reading Brits might travel to Napa one day, might have a passion for sweet wine, and might want to avail themselves of a few of the very best sweet offerings there which even Americans have a hard time finding in their local markets. I wouldn't begrudge them this as passion for the grape spills out.

I am not veiling anything, thinly or otherwise. I am being direct highlighting possible issues and don't read anything into what I've written that isn't there tighe. That's insecure and defensive and actually hinders movement. If I've characterized Kerry and Cascadia correctly--was there a comparably styled chef and restaurant there before he opened? That's it. I wondered if there might be some resentment because of a frisson which might exist--call it a cultural restaurant or culinary frisson--which Kerry inadvertently tapped into or actually tried to tap into--to bring something there that wasn't there before. This is not a criticism or personal attack on you, your culture, your attitudes, whatever. You even seem to support my speculation Tighe when you say I'm on to something. I have asked leading questions to get you locals to respond and to put things in context in ways that I can't--not the least of which is to define what "Decidely Northwest" could mean, who else might be doing it, whether it is a gimmick--on this and other current Pac NW threads which I seem to have sparked a bit of the juices to flow on. Again, all without personalizing the issue with any one poster, without ad hominem comments directed toward any one poster. And if you read through the threads you will find what I said about Kerry and I did not call him brilliant nor did I accuse anyone of not being able to appreciate his brilliance. It is possible--just possible--that if Kerry broke some new ground with Cascadia--concept and package more so than his usage of local ingredients and composition--that that would go a long way to explaining some of the reactions posted here. The position you seem to adopt re: Kerry and Cascadia is that it is unique AND doesn't quite fit in some ways. Seems an eminently reasonable position to me--which is why I asked in the first place. Girl Chow, who has provided some excellent historical context and really moved her position forward by opening one door--comparing the Ark chefs, Tom Douglas and Kerry Sear, and their use of local and indigenous flora and fauna to the Alice Waters ethos--and I asked the natural followup--if so, did Kerry as chef and Cascadia as restaurant concept and package deliver the goods in a more overtly styled and stylized way than anyone else? Did he, in actuality, affix a high price to what he offered--which as one poster said seemed right out of the pages of Food Arts. Don't you think it would be an interesting--and valuable inquiry--to see how many locals see this development, this thinly-veiled criticism of Kerry and Cascadia, as valid? LaurieA-B I'd venture to say doesn't. Do you? Is my speculation valid that a possible refinement in presentation, composition and plating by Kerry distinguished him in ways that the Ark and Tom Douglas and other potential chefs in the area could not lay claim to? I don't know Tighe--that's why I'm asking you! After all--there's a difference in style and presentation between Alice Waters and Gray Kunz or Daniel Boulud, is there not? All three chefs could list the same four ingredients on a menu--the menu could even "read" similarly and then all three composed dishes would be presented differently--with the Kunz and Boulud almost certainly more refined in construction, more complex visually and more sophisticated than the Alice Waters. No judgement implied (though I personally could apply a judgement based on my knowledge and preference--and I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem guessing which I value more highly--but for the purposes of this example, no) and no judgement needed to see there's going to be a difference. One is not better than the other necessarily, just different. Savvy Seattle diners and inexperienced Seattle hicks could see and describe the differences regardless of where they've dined, no? And can't we discuss this without you assuming I'm putting you down as a hick? Believe me--if I thought you didn't know what you are talking about out there, I wouldn't hedge, I'd tell you directly.

Not all Pineau des Charentes are as sweet or appropriate for dessert Nightscotsman--so be careful. I've worked with a few and the variable sweetness and high alcohol percentage can get in the way with a good dessert pairing. Cognac Gautier makes a nice, not too expensive aged Pineau des Charentes called Panatela which I just happened to build a dessert around for a dinner last year at Epcot. It's available in the States. You might get some leads in this cognac article from a few years ago: http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Afici...its/fo1098.html Apparently Pineaus are positioned as apertifs in some markets and by some manufacturers.

tls--would you happen to have links to those restaurants websites handy that haven't been mentioned? I have the Ark cookbook--who doesn't? But current information or article links would be appreciated. I wonder if part of the negative reaction to Kerry and Cascadia is that he opened a restaurant that could be picked up and dropped into San Francisco, Chicago or New York--with a bit of polish honed from a lifetime of reading Food Arts and a bit of attitude that might come from serving a cosmopolitan clientele which travels and dines in these kind of restaurants? Let's call it the sophistication of a Four Seasons, blended with a star move opening your own restaurant with a little more Northwest personality. What are some examples of what you mean by the wonderful food those other chefs developed that is uniquely theirs tls--and is there refinement and sophistication in the presentation of that food apart from the taste (To bring this back to Girl Chow--this is the big bug a boo for me with the Cal/Ital Alice Waters school of simple ingredients simply prepared and simply presented). Do these others have the kind of refinement and sophistication which, yes, unashamedly comes from the pages of Food Arts and from paying attention to the best restaurants around the country and in Europe--from dining at Tru or Clio or French Laundry or Daniel et al. It isn't a crime for chefs to have a trademark, cute, gimmicky dish or concept which attracts media attention. Have you ever had upscale food served in a chinese takeout container? I have by chefs more talented and internationally well-known that Kerry. Apart from the "cuisine" and seasonal ingredients--is there much precedent there for the kind of stylish, urbane restaurant Kerry opened? And I'd still love to read local/regional reviews of terrible meals at Cascadia--any old links appreciated.

Margaret--thank you for that very tenable little gift. I suspect it might be linked to often around here.

Shout out to Girl Chow--who still has the press kit from Cascadia's opening--how in line is the current $65 tasting menu and number of courses versus the price(s) of the opening tasting menus two plus years ago? Also Girl--it might be interesting to do a quick comparison of menu ingredients and terms from then to now--do you have the time or interest to perform a cursory comparison? Also, this appeared on the soon-to-be-infamous Herbfarm thread, where some antsy vitriolic poster stirred things up, but might be more relevant here: a comment was made as if the requirement that "the whole table must order one of the tasting menus" was somehow strange at the fine dining level. Is it uncommon in the Pac NW at the high end? We've been through this before on other boards and this is, in fact, common--it's the policy at Gramercy Tavern, which as far as restauarnt customer relations and service policies are concerned has been widely lauded and emulated in recent years. And LaurieA-B, you're a peach for your tireless and prompt service in furthering the eGullet cause. Did you notice any other dessert presentations as servers whisked them by you--anything visually interesting, colorful or up in parfait glasses?

Gavin--I've had the Chateau Richard 1994 "Coup de Coeur" Saussignac by Richard Doughty and have a few 750 ml bottles that I'm waiting for a few years to open--have you tasted this before or since? (In the states this wine is available through Langdon Shiverick in Ohio.) It's also certified organic--do you recall your visit to the vineyard and whether a big deal was made of this? Might you also have the link or reference to which wine fared so well up against Yquem?

Find out Chappellet here Magnolia: http://www.chappellet.com/ Their chenin blanc "Moelleux" is my single favorite American dessert wine. I liked the 1997 best but they don't release any in years without cooperative weather to ensure a balance between sweetness, acidity and botrytis development. Same with Navarro--the dessert wines are limited bottlings, genuine labors of love and don't get released if the fragile conditions aren't right. Nina--Dolce as in Dolce Winery, spun off from Far Niente. It was perhaps the first serious American dessert wine to be produced and distributed in any numbers. The 1998 Dolce was fine, though I feel the Chappellet more complex, superior in every way. I even reach for the much, much more affordable Bonny Doon before I do the Dolce. (Just me, lots of media wine types swoon over the Dolce and you do see it on alot of lists.) You do see the Bonny Doon, Magnolia, on lists here in the US--it's bottled in great numbers for a dessert wine--sometimes tens of thousands of cases--whereas some dessert wines are in the few hundred cases. I believe it is on more lists and has more sales than any other dessert wine in the US--and it's extremely good for the price and Randall's process. Yes, Bux, that's the Seppelt you had. It's aged and then Seppelt dates it when "bottled." The other very fine Seppelt is the D.P. 63 Rutherglen Show Muscat, last I had was the 1997 bottling. More dried raisin and spice than the 57. I can back up Bux's suggestion of the Spanish Casta Diva--readily available in the US and fairly priced. I've used it in desserts often in addition to drinking it--a very fragrant "muscat de beaumes de venise" style wine grown near an orange orchard.

Paul and others--thank you for the Wegmans beef feedback. Since you'll be in Wegmans before I will--keep a look out for other irradiated products besides ground beef, ok? Perhaps at that point we could summarize and reintroduce this as a topic on General. Things like spices, wheats and flours, eggs, other meats like chicken and pork, fruit and veggies could be stocked by Wegmans with the same public labeling and disclosure as with their ground beef. Also, keep an eye out for an educational pamphlet--so we can determine if their position is presented as self-servingly as Whole Foods. Their website says that, as of May 2002, the only irradiated products carried are the frozen patties, the fresh ground beef and "a few produce items in select stores." By the way--how many other non-irradiated ground beef types are also sold at Wegmans? It seems from their website that the irradiated beef is simply an "option"--which means Wegmans, unlike Whole Foods, lets the consumer make up their own mind. Here's the link to the Wegmans irradiation page: http://www.wegmans.com/kitchen/storage/irradiation.asp

At the higher end, Ridgewell's Caterers has a kosher catering division: http://www.ridgewells.com/index.html