Zoticus
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Zoticus
-
-
I do think I can add something when talking about how he presents himself publicly, his business model and the actions of his PR and TV production companies.
Are you saying that he's not the best then? Or are you saying that his PR is the best but his food isn't, or what?
I don't understand why you're so against PR anyway, surely the mass of attention that Heston gets is only because he's proportionally so much better than anyone else. and not because of press releases etc?
-
I'm trying to decide whether you are ...
a) working for him or
b) stalking him
Please, in a spirit of disclosure, let us know either way.
c) neither.
-
Dude, the only thing acting like a prat achieves is to convince other people that you are a prat.
I don't think defending Heston is acting like a 'prat'. All I see here is lots of amateurs having a dig.
We should be celebrating Heston, his is an inspirational rags to riches story that gives hope to millions of deprived youngsters. From a poverty stricken one bedroomed flat with all the family in the same bed on the mean streets of Paddington, becoming a champion kick-boxing to survive, and using his muscular body to earn a living the only way he knew how by debt collecting. Selling everything he owned to eat in the great restaurants of the world, and then, with no formal training, buying and refurbishing a former 12th century pub, which he has made into the undispitued number one restaurant in the world, and on the way inventing molecular gastronomy and revolutionizng cuisine! Not only that, but he is also teaching the scientists how to do their jobs too, as well as discovering the food of the past!
-
The new top-rated place is Pedro Subijana's veteran Akelarre in San Sebastián. Akelarre and Juan Mari Arzak were founders of the 'new Basque cuisine' movement over 30 years ago. If the elevation of Akelarre is confirmed, there will be six restaurants in this category in Spain: Arzak, Akelarre, Martín Berasategui, El Bulli, Sant Pau, Can Fabes.
Based on one visit two years ago, I wouldn't say it even merits two stars. Mind you I'd say the same about Berasategui and Sant Pau.
-
There were several oddities:
Cooking at 50C is too low to do any actual cooking...
I'd cook at 57C for 8 hours or so, then blowtorch...
Right, the inventor of Molecular Alchemy is wrong, maybe that's why the programme isn't called 'jackal10: In Search of Perfection'.
-
If Veyrat & Adria can change their menu's so can this guy, or give up the pretense of walking with the kings. :wonk:
Perhaps you've got this the wrong way around. Where would Veyrat, Adria and Gagnaire be without treading the trail blazed by goodly Heston of the gleaming probe (thermometer)?
-
Heston doesn't need to change his menu because it's perfect. He's proved it's perfect with science. If he changed his menu he would be conceding that it wasn't perfect since something that is perfect doesn't need to be changed, ever.
I just think you don't get it.
-
I'm making the perfect treacle tart.
What shape is it? Loved the rectangular Black Forest Gateaux, round cakes are crap. Genius!
-
Or perhaps c. someone who resents the knockers.
Despite the facts, Sir Heston has placed British food at the top of world gastronomy. So why is it that so many people want to knock him? I notice that none of his critics here have their own pime time tv shows. More than just coincidence? I don't think so
So, don't feed the flames, eh?Don't worry, I won't respond to your insults. Have you seen the program btw?
-
If these Parisian restaurants are so good, why is it that Sir Heston is officially the best chef on the planet?
Heston is certainly not a Sir, and the claim that he is 'officially' the best chef on the planet is debatable. According to whom?
According to the Queen of Britain and Restaurant Magazine.
-
The difference between Fat Duck and a Pierre Gagnaire is that PG turns out new dishes at a drop of the hat where as the Fat Duck menu never changes. For all the innovations behind the scenes in the lab its a shocker how few seem to make their way onto the degustation. That gap is what puts the top notch Paris ***s on a different level to the UKs
If these Parisian restaurants are so good, why is it that Sir Heston is officially the best chef on the planet?
-
Well, he can cook, but we knew that already. I turned off halfway through, he's uncomfortable and stilted in front of camera and I found it hard to watch. No presence or charisma, I'd rather even watch Jamie than this, and that's saying something.
Despite pluggging BMW on desert island dicks, HB is the worlds only chef to have a knighthood. KNOW YOUR PLACE!
-
Saw it last night off tape, really enjoyed it.So what if i can't get dry ice, liquid nitrogen at the local Spar, this was highly entertining view of how HB's mind works.He may not be the best presenter on TV, but FFS, the man can't be good at everything.A refreshing change to the normal crap we have on TV about food.This was DIFFERENT!
Exactly. He is a GENIUS. The point about a programme on Leonardo Da Vinci is not to then pick up a brush and paint your own Mona Lisa. It's the same with Heston, watching a GENIUS at work is a humbling privilege and well worth the license fee.
-
It's worth noting that, in a series like this they don't actually choose the running order till they've shot the whole thing - then usual practice is to run with the best show first.
In which case - God help us.
... any half intelligent foodie is going to realise he's doing exactly what Wall's are doing in their better equipped labs.
Heston is not only officially the best chef in the world, but he is also a doctor of science and has recently been awarded an OBE, which proves that He is a genius!
Comparing him to Wall's is an outrage, it's like saying Leonardo Da Vinci is a house painter.
Hestons food should make you proud to be British.
-
Zoticus has a point - everyone has their preferences. We are talking about the difference between someone ordering their steak rare and someone ordering it medium to well because they 'dont like blood'.
Perhaps the reason people talk about perfection is not because it it the perfect way to cook something. In my opinion it is because it is the method that is as true to the original form as possible without simply serving it raw. You retain all the nutrients, moisture and content of your protein - cook it in a controlled and gentle environment to achieve a safe level at which to consume it whilst adding all the benefit to the protein by way of seasoning or marinates
Put like that is incredibly sterile and un-romantic but i think it helps explain the difference between the meaning of the superlatives that are often linked to discussions about sous-vide
Strip everything away and i think most people would agree that sous-vide has its place in any kitchen as a means of cooking and that in the right context new technologies can be used to produce innovative and exciting ways to cook food. Furthermore i think the proof is in the (sous-vide) pudding when you look at the proponents of my theory Juan Roca, Feran Adrian, Heston Blumenthal, Anthony Flinn, Willie Dufresne, Thomas Keller and so on and so on
Obviously, in order to cook something 'perfectly', you first need to have an idea what 'perfect' is and then adapt your means to that end. My point is not about differing tastes, about which we all know there's no arguing. What I want to say is that if something is cooked to an exacting technical specification, it doesn't automatically follow that it is perfect or even good.
Fish protein sets at 40C (?).
I cook it at 40C until it is just set.
Therefore it is perfect.
As you can see there is a missing premise.
Just set fish protein is perfect.
I'd take issue with this, because I think that what is meant by 'perfect' in this sense, is really 'the objective I seek'. In a scientific sense one can claim to have verified a theorem with complete success, and although not a technical term, this outcome could conceivably be designated perfect, but the aesthetic qualities of eating cannot be reduced to a successful experiment, and in fact the idea that achieving one's objective is enough in itself, also leaves the diner completely out of the loop.
I think this sums up a lot of modern cooking. Merely inventing a challenge and then meeting it does not equate with perfection or pleasing your diners. To me, sous-vide salmon is like I imagine salmon to be had it been left in a shopping bag in the sun. Either way, it's vile and whether it's been arrived as the solution to an invented culinary problem via vacuum sealing and stirred water baths, or because you left it on the car seat on the hottest day of the year, it's still vile.
Indeed, anyone who says something is perfect is effectively saying that it is as good as it gets, and when it's as good as it gets, that is the end of gastronomy.
-
as for just set fish, its absouloutly superb, when you take any fish over 40 degrees it brings out the proteins in the flesh and changes the texture, if cooked at 40 degrees you still achive the 'translucent' stage and poached fish to perfection.
This encapsulates the problem for me: sous-vide/low-temp cooking rests on the assumption that 'perfect' is synonymous with 'just coagulated' protein.
Personally, and I wouldn't go as far as claiming knowledge of 'perfection', a piece of good salmon placed skin side down in a hot pan and put in the oven until it's 'medium-rare' has a lot more going in terms of complexity and interplay between its various components, than the uniformity of a low-temp cooked piece of the same.
I'm not ruling out that this method can produce superior methods, I just don't think that the term 'perfectly cooked' can be reduced to 'just coagulated'.
-
I can understand your viewpoint but unless your basing 'hardly pleasant' on an actual experience i would urge you to try it first. Far from being unpleasant the results are in fact extremely good and pleasant indeed
No, I've eaten a fair bit of this kind of thing, and for me it's a trade off between uniformly soft texture, and flavour. Horses for courses, I suppose, but I can't help thinking that chewing has, rather unfairly, become bad manners in restaurant dining rooms.
And what is the difference between searing a steak and finishing it in the oven and cooking steak sous-vide and finishing with searing?Not much, which was sort of my point.
-
For example, try cooking a piece of salmon sous-vide for 13 minutes at 50 degrees and then try cooking it at 60 degrees for 10 minutes - completely different results.
Completely different results for sure, but I would debate the desirability of eating 'just-coagulated' fish. Novel, perhaps, but hardly pleasant. Besides, low-temperature, moist-heat cooking in a hermetically sealed vessel is not new. What is new is the trend for cooking things that don't need to be cooked like this.
Pork belly, lamb shank, pig-cheeks, oxtail all require a long a low temperature cooking, and they lend themselves well to sous-vide. Fish, and very tender cuts of meat can be cooked sous-vide, but there's really much reason to so other than to be different. Indeed, the lengths gone to to accompany a sous-vide piece of protein with some kind of Maillard reaction flavour seems almost self defeating.
Finally, vegetables can be cooked this way with interesting results. This is probably the area with the most potential. For example, pisto (similar to ratatouille) stored for a few days sous vide looks and tastes much better than it would do otherwise.
-
Is it god's gift to diners but a thorn in the side of the culinary establishment - or is it just boil-in-the-bag?
I think it's both. Allegedly, it can be used as a distinct technique that yields up original preparations, or it can be used to control portions, centralize production, and minimize staff and wastage.
Unsurprisingly, chefs seem to dislike the latter use. Regarding the former, I've heard a lot spoken but seen little evidence of it. The now ubiquitous sous-vide pork belly used be called 'braised' and tasted just as good, if not better, to my humble palate. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt of the value of sous-vide for banqueting, which has seen a marked improvement in the last decade.
-
I've never made them myself, but I do know that, here in Spain, tinta de calamar (squid ink) is readily available in little packets. It's handy for adding to rice or other dishes.
The little sachets contain sepia, or cuttlefish, ink, not squid ink. I've never made direct comparison, but I suspect that the effect on the sauce either way is minimal.
-
Our kids were started off on purees at about six months. These were made from fresh vegetables: courgette, green beans, carrot, potato, onion, garlic (and after a 12 months, broccoli), pulses: beans, lentils, chickpeas; with either chicken breast, fillet steak, or white fish, and, of course, a dash of extra-virgin olive oil.
I've noticed that kids here eat more widely than in the UK, mine are no exception and they happily eat things like olives, fish, greens, and tomatoes.
On the basis of my own anecdotal evidence, I'd say that early exposure to a variety of foodstuffs does give children a more adventurous palate.
Blumenthal: In Search of Perfection
in Food Media & Arts
Posted
I wouldn't like to be in John Crace's shoes at the moment: