macrosan

I think it's important to say that this last sentence is almost certainly not so. Those at eGullet who eat out at high-end restaurants even as often as once a week are a tiny minority. Those who eat out at the top restaurants as much as once a month are probably also a minority here. Because they eat out most often, they tend to post more often to review their experiences. And so the perceived "view" of the membership of eGullet is inevitably skewed. My experience in speaking to and corresponding with many eGullet memebrs is that what JAZ says is indeed the norm here. Most of us view eating at a Michelin 2-star restaurant as a special occasion. That "specialness" can easily be destroyed if the chef (or owner) is distracted away from doing what he started doing that made his restaurant one of those special destinations. The specialness will also be tarnished by a lower reputation being gained by the chef/owner on a less successful venture. And I cannot think of any expansion venture by a named chef or owner which was more successful than his original.

So do I, sometimes. I've been to Italy about 14 or 15 times for holidays, say average 10 days each, so I'd estimate I've eaten bread in Italy at 300 meals. I've probably eaten at Italian restaurants in the UK serving Italian bread another 500 or so times. I've been to Denmark 11 times, for a week each time. So my estimate is that I've eaten Danish bread at maybe 150 meals. France is the hardest to estimate. I've been for so many one/two day trips I've lost count, but I'll guess at 100 meals. Of course I've had 200 or more meals at French restaurants, but I've always suspected they're not serving true French bread.

Just for the sake of accuracy, Tony, it's Toby's friend we were talking about Of course, any friend of Toby's is a friend of mine ...

Absolutely so. I remember that thread, and G.J's posts were very informative. What you have to note is that the concept of "super-tasters" is not a qualitative one, it's strictly physiological. So what they can do is to differentiate and identify specific flavors, but that doesn't imply any qualitative assessment as to whether any flavor is good or bad. Training a palate to identify flavors is also a physiological issue. Habituating a palate is interesting. On the one hand it can mean "dulling" the palate so that it no longer identifies certain flavors. On the other hand it can mean training the mind to believe that certain flavors which it instinctively finds unpleasant are not so. The use in common language of the word taste as in "good or bad taste" relates to the qualitative issue only.

Anti-British bastards Don't they realize that's 11pm in civilization ?????? I have the menu sorted out now : 24oz shoulder of lamb 16oz ground chuck steak 4 large red onions 6 medium Idaho potatoes 3 tablespoons sesame oil 1 tin Italian peeled tomatoes 1/2 pint water 1 bottle 1984 Lirac 1/2 bottle Taylors 1988 Reserve Port Place lamb, steak, onions and all that other shit in refrigerator. Open both bottles and drink. Let wife cook the rest for brunch on Monday.

Toby, I knew that we were in agreement We are also both right Appreciation of food is a matter of individual taste above all else.

The first half is quite right, Toby. So we are all agreed on what "complexity" really means. The second half might be right, but you have missed one important option from your list. "Whether what you did to the peach is an improvement or not" also depends on whether or not the person who is going to eat the more complex peach thinks it's an improvement. For example, Heston Blumenthal might well have added liquorice, tobacco and black pepper. He would think that an improvement, but I would not. So the determination of "improvement" is totally subjective. Incidentally, that's not an extreme example. For instance, I happen not to like yoghourt, so any chef who added yoghourt to a peach, which very many people would say was an improvement, would find me saying the opposite.

My disclaimer up front is, yet again, that "good" is a relative term, but I will attempt to use it in the widest intelligent sense Similarly, I will have to struggle with the implicit definition that "Italian bread" is the range of breads found widely made across the country, and represented abroad by bakers who describe their breads as "Italian bread". And similarly for each nationality. So I have to exclude localised artisans and obscure variations that no doubt will be widely found across Italy who may well produce entirely different breads of which I know nothing. I love Italian bread; that's because it is to my taste. I enjoy the typically well-baked crust, and the slightly coarse, chewy texture inside. I am especially fond of the pugliese from Sullivan Street bakery that they serve in Babbo. I also enjoy southern Italian pizza base. Italian bread is made, as far as I can tell, from good ingredients, and it's made (in the places where I like it) with care and skill. So I'm content to say that it's good bread. I also like Danish bread, which is about as opposite to Italian bread as you can get. It's very sophisticated, has widely differing textures and flavours according to type of bread, and it's the only refined white bread I've eaten that I have liked. So I'm content to say that Danish bread is good bread. It happens that I dislike French bread. I find it either fluffy and tasteless, or greasy or doughy. I can understand why others might like it, but it's just not to my taste. So I don't find French bread good.

And this is the nub of your argument, Lxt ? You spent most of your posts in this thread arguing the merits of soundly based opinion against less soundly based opinion, of expert against non-expert, of objectivity against subjectivity, and finally you concede that the central issue, the relationship between market price and worth is determined by the total marketplace of hundreds of millions of people, the large majority of whom lack (by your definition) the qualifications to hold a valid opinion Actually, you are exactly right about that. It's an interesting point that the price of (say) Kobe beef is determined both by what the wealthy connoisseur is prepared to pay for it and by what the average person is not prepared to pay for it. So we have a position where people who have no knowledge of Kobe beef are contributing significantly to its price. But surely they cannot contribute to an understanding of its value I cannot accept that people who perfectly well understand worth, and know how to define it in its own terms, and can perfectly well argue the case for A being of higher merit than B, insist on using market price as an indicator or form of measurement. The only reason I have ever been able to deduce for this intellectually irrational position is that such people wish to place a non-intellectual and non-negotiable barrier in the way of outsiders who might wish enter their wealth-based elite.

Yeah, but only Majumdar has your number !!!! So don't hold your breath

I think that's almost certainly correct, Jonathan. My visits to France in recent years have been restricted to central Paris, Le Touquet, Hardelot, Calais, Wimereux, and Boulogne, all in Northern France and all fairly touristic areas. The supermarkets seem to me to be little different in terms of variety and quality of food than Waitrose or Marks & Spencer. The food shops seem little different from our local fishmonger, speciality butcher and cheese shop. I'll grant you that wouldn't be true in the small villages of England, and it may not be true in other English cities, but it is true in London. Priobably there are more speciality shops per capita in a French town than in an English town, but I suspect that even in those terms England is catching up. Incidentally, why would anyone with an interest in food shop at Tesco or Sainsbury ?

Oh Lisa, if only they would The problem is actually the other way round. We here are not sure if Simon's love of squirrels is entirely platonic or culinary, nor how he feels about threesomes. That's killed it off, then. Much too young, oh I mean much too young ... But we thank you for trying, Lisa, from the bottom of our eGulletarian hearts

since when? Ever since g.j took out a subscription to On-line OED

The only rationally accurate part of this post is the first seven words, in which you correctly confirm what I wrote The rest is just semantics and sophistry. What is "good" absolutely need have no relationship to price. Weightwatchers would not say ripe fruit was not good, they would (or might) say it was not good for them. "Experts" would not say ripe fruit was good, they would say that ripe fruit was good if you wanted to eat raw fruit. I need a translation into English of this

Sorry, Gavin, but you lost me Why is this discussion off topic ? Who is comparing what with which ? And who are the All Comers ?

Of course, that may say more about the dessert maker than your preferences, Liza I think that restaurateurs are afraid not to do something special with raw ingredients, since they think that somehow threatens their position. Of course, if all a restaurant served was raw food, then people wouldn't go because they might just as well eat at home. But I see no reason why individual ingredients, or individual starter or dessert dishes, should not be raw. Many restaurants serve smoked salmon (bought in) or asparagus (just steamed) or oysters (raw) as starters, and they seem to have no problme with that. But I have rarely seen raw fruit for dessert in the USA, although it is quite common in the UK. The Americans have a love affair with dessert in general, and it has become an art-form in its own right, so maybe that's the reason. I happen to love raw fruit, and I agree with you that I regularly find fruit being spoiled by a chef's insistence on attempting to improve it. I remember once ordering "raspberries and loganberries" (two of my favorite fruits) from the menu, to be served with a plate of the two fruits covered with a red sauce and with chocolate chips sprinkled around the dish. I sent it back and got just the fruit, then drove the waiter crazy insisting I didn't want sugar, or cream, or creme anglaise, or anything poured over or around it Incidentally, the fruit was totally delicious

Yes, I think there is, Tony. Every great signature dish from every great chef surely rank exactly with the examples you quoted. What could possibly have happened to downgrade a dish that was once acknowledged as "great" ? Our changing personal "taste" ? Maybe, but in that case what about the new up-and-coming tasters who never got to experience those great dishes ? I totally agree with the main thrust of your post. Gourmets are being conditioned to seek innovation, either by the feeling that their own palates are becoming jaded, or maybe simply in a marketing drive for innovation for its own sake, or by the need to keep ahead of the ever-increasing body of the population to whom the "old" gourmet food is now becoming accessible. That is not to say, of course, that new and exciting cuisines and dishes are to be derided. Far from it, they represent the dynamism and excitement of the culinary industry, and innovation deserves encouragement. But there is no reason why this should be to the exclusion of the traditional. In fact it is the careful preservation of the traditional that provides the benchmark and the foil for the innovative. Beethoven's works have been carefully preserved and nurture. That never prejudiced the development of Mahler or Stravinsky, in fact exactly the reverse.

I really can't believe you can rationally support this contention without a major redefinition of the English language (especially the word "better") I would agree only that a more complex taste is a more complex taste. What increased complexity produces will vary from taster to taster. Somewhere among the tasters, no doubt some will say that more complex is better. You see, "good" is a relative word and a subjective word. It only acquires any meaning in a particular context. You could say that "ripe fruit is good" in a greengrocer's shop, but you might say "ripe fruit is bad" at a Weightwatcher's meeting.

When I was in Siciliy, I never saw a square pizza. Nina, could you ask the di Faras sometime whether that's just a name that's used in America, or whether there really is some tradition of square pizzas in Sicily.

I'm going to Luger's for the first time in about 12 years... I don't think we can wait that long

Sadly not, Tony. The whole event was really rather refined and restrained, despite Simon's presence. The FOG was good. Light, refreshing, not at all strong-tasting, and absolutely in line with Gavin J's "breakfast" annotation. Pleasant to drink, good subtle flavours, but once I'd done my duty and had one not a cocktail I would drink for choice. I was a whisky-switcher thereafter The Player is pleasant, but the music was turned up too loud to permit for comfortable conversation, and the tables they had kindly reserved for us were placed around an external corner so the group inevitably split into two (or three if you count Thom's mob at the bar ). Nevertheless, as always, it was a pleasure to chat to some eGullet friends and to meet a few new ones. Simon screwed up on the transatlantic phone-link to the New York event, but in fact by the appointed time for that link we were all long gone to get some grub

The mini-debate between Jonathan and Oraklet is interesting. It moves the subject, quite properly, away from a discussion of historical and legendary events, and more towards the present reality and myth. I would accept that the interest level in food amongst the general population of France is probably at least as high as in any country of the world. That is because, whether through history or legend, French youngsters are brought up to believe that food is a crucial part of their cultural heritage. It matters not how, why or indeed whether this is true. Their self-perception is that it is true, and that provokes the interest. Of course the "typical French housewife" described by the Washington Post article referenced by Jonathan is romantic nonsense. But I do believe the principle is valid. When I was visiting France regularly twenty to thirty years ago, the variety and quality of foods found in the shops was immensely superior to England, and that was because French "housewives" insisted on that variety and quality. I find now that they France has not kept ahead of the field. The quality of produce in French supermarkets is no better than anywhere else I have been to in the world. And the same is almost certainly true of the generality of their "food culture". The rest of the world, notably the USA and Britain, but also Italy and Belgium, have seemingly caught up with France, and overtaken them. It is interesting to ask now "What is American cuisine and who invented it" because the answer seems clearly to be "There is no such definable thing as American cuisine, and it is impossible to determine who invented it". Well surely the same was true once of French cuisine.

I can't agree with Tony. I find with great music that I generally enjoy it more the more I hear it, and the same with good restaurants and good food. Familiarity does not breed contempt. It takes two to develop advance expectations - you and the restaurant. Since the restaurant is the supplier, it is primarily their responsibility to give the customer a realistic set of expectations. It is their marketing stance, their price, their reservation policy, and so on which "set out their stall". On the customer side, is it up to you to decide whose reviews you read and listen to, to interpret the marketing material to decide what you expect, to understand what you might expect at that price and of that type of establishment, and from all of that to develop realistic expectations. If either side gets it wrong, then the result will be disappointment. I agree with the other half of what Tony said, which is effectively that "ignorance is bliss". I envy young children the capacity to gain such huge enjoyment out of simple things, a capacity which we can lose as we get older and more experienced. It does take a conscious effort of will to wipe away our veneer of cynicism and to recapture that naive enjoyment. And even if we do, it is often more fun to pick fault than to praise, certainly on eGullet

Do we have time to set up a live video-link ?

Oh we do, we do !