Man

I agree, the best way to appreciate your meal is alone, or with at most one discerning partner who is willing to focus on food (as happens to me with Woman). Any more at the table, even discerning, and the experience changes to one which, while also possibly pleasant, is not deep food appreciation: too many other factors creep in even in the company of food lovers. In London, the bar at Arbutus and the 'single' benches at Rules are places where I feel totally comfortable. In Italy, I feel like a real nerd everywhere when alone. Man

Southern bias? Well, certainly not in favour of Italian cuisine...

Italian food is the only one (I think) I really understand and my experiences at Theo Randall's were extremely disappointing. Clearly inferior in my view not only to Locanda L but also to several others such as Latium, Semplice, Number Twelve (not really Italian but Italian chefs and Italian influenced cuisine), and even Via Condotti. Of the others mentioned, I think Patterson's is miles below a star. Man

Good examples, but what would be wrong in saying that Ducasse (or one of his acolytes) when cooking the top dish has cooked an Italian dish? For, I don't think it can be described other than as Italian - except that probably the mozzarella wasn't that good by real Italian standards and would have been sent back in a top restaurant in Italy Nevertheless, of course one can only judge the 'Italianness' of a cuisine by looking at the entire menu (OK, I am guilty too by having compared the Cracco and the Blumenthal rice - but it was so obvious in that case!). I very much agree with you and Maureen about the fact that the international public by and large does not afford Italian chefs much latitude. Here in London this has created the funny situation that Italian chefs in such a cosmopolitan city need to be (in order to suceed as businesses) far more conservative than their colleagues in Italy (is the same true in other megacities?).

Did anybody see the program on the 'perfect risotto' by Heston Blumenthal last night on BBC2? I felt I understood quite well, in that context at least, the difference between 'contemporary Italian' and outright 'non-Italian' cuisine by comparing two risotti, one by Cracco and one by Blumenthal. The former was strange, eerie, definitely not traditional, but still unmistakably Italian risotto in its classical lines. He brushed the dish with achovy paste, poured a standard risotto on it, and topped it with a piece of dark chocolate which promptly melted in the steaming risotto. What Blumenthal did was haute cusine for sure, contemporary for sure, but in my opinion failed completely to capture the esence of risotto. First, he decided to follow Gualtiero Marchesi with his trademark procedure of 'burro acidulato' (a sauce made with butter, onions and wine) . Now I don't know if you have ever tried it, but this in itself gives a very distinctive taste, enough to hold your entire attention. In fact, Marchesi apart from that keeps things simple and just puts, beside saffron, his gold leaf on the risotto to finish the dish: that's all. Blumenthal, no. He did all sorts of things (it was as usual impossible to understand the exact recipe from the program), including 'enhancing' Marchesi's preparation with flavour of rice toasted in butter, garnishing the risotto with creme fraiche flavoured with screwpine (pandanus), flavouring the stock with basmati rice, and accompanying the dish with a cappuccino cup with I forgot what mixture inside. Now, if you you look at all the great risotti made by Italian chefs, even cutting edge ones (even a basmati rice pap with dried coffee powder and sea-urchin by Cracco) you'll always notice a certain restraint in the number of ingredients, in the preparation, and in the presentation. This is essential for a true risotto because, ultimately, the recipe is about RICE. What is the point of mixing three types of rice, as Blumenthal does, and overwheling them with ingredients and preparations? Well, certainly there is a point as he is a great chef; but that point is irremediably distant from the spirit of Italian cuisine, which rests on 'classical proportions' even in the most audacious of its expressions.

I like these formulas and I wonder if they might provide a clue for the main topic. If the underlying philosophy of Italian cusine is not food+X but food-->X, one could claim that in order to be recognised as producing 'Italian cuisine' chefs using 'cutting edge techiniques' (whatever they are) should respect this philosophy. In other words, they should shun preparations that displace the primary ingredient of the dish from its centrality, or transform it to a degree that makes it lose its recognisability. So for example when cooking sous vide was introduced, this was an innovation that suited Italian cuisine well, as it enhances and respects the flavours of the main component. Foams are more delicate (besides, to my mind, they fly full in the face of the 'solidity' which is the hallmark of a typical Italian dish, but that's another matter).

I would say that the most obvious difference in technical prowess between French and Italian chefs is in the preparation of sauces (and in particular of the underlying stocks). Here in London, and in Italy too, it is even possible to go to rated Italian restaurants that make a cuisine essentially without stocks. Scandalous. It is stocks/sauces where the French excel technically, and I believe it is the incredible refinement in the art of their preparation that has made French cuisine, for better or for worse, the leading one internationally. I am not so sure about pastry. Obviously the French have a great tradition in this area, but if we look at current offerings I am not sure the the typical middle to high-end Italian place is technically defective in pastry preparation. I agree with Fortedei that the French should give up pasta and risotto, it is just ridiculous. And bread, as Hathor says is a problem in some places, though Woman and I (who are fanatical about bread) are often pleasantly surprised in Italy by some fantastic bread baskets.

There are several fine italians in London with menus below the £30 for 3 courses (you will find rather extensive info on italians in london here) but of course once you add drinks and service charge you'll end up more towards the £40-£45. i think it is impossible to eat really good italian cuisine in london for less. enjoy.

Interesting...Woman also uses 00-flour (200g per kilo of potato) and no egg, but no olive oil either - now that the secret is out we'll try this one. The parisienne sounds like fun too.

Yes, gnocchi seem a pretty simple thing to make, yet why is it that almost every time I have them in restaurants they are somewhat disappointing, most of the time ranging from pebbles (in the case of some potato gnocchi) to gooey mash? Erba Luna's gnocchi looked splendid in the picture, just the right consistency and duly 'indented' (excessive smoothness being one of the regular defects), and it's good to hear they were as pleasing to the palate as they looked - well done hathor! (and thanks for this brilliant report Chufi).

obviously i can't use the 'edit' function - sorry!

I draw my parallels from the wine world, with which I am quite familiar and there is nothing preposterous about it. It is something I have heard over and over. Given what is at stake and the tremendous amount of corruption that exists in both the public and private sectors in Italy, it might be more preposterous to expect GR to be squeaky clean. ← Sorry Swiss Chef, I certainly did not mean to intimate that GR is 'squeaky clean', even though, given the way things go in Italy it might just be one of the least corrupt organisations around - which is not saying much, I agree Bolasco, who is the editor of the guide, strikes me as a committed and serious guy; I believe he is honest, though of course one never knows. My point was rather that any dodgy bit in the guide will probably be due not to straightforward party political affilitations, as I thought was being suggested, but rather to that complex and viscous network of friendships and enmities, jealousies and envies, feuds and paybacks that unfortunately characterises many sectors of society in Italy. Also, any less than transparent practice will probably concern a few top end, visible restaurants, those that make media noise. That's why I suggested to judge the guide (which I do not particularly recommend, by the way) by its competence in the reviews of the less famous establishements.

I draw my parallels from the wine world, with which I am quite familiar and there is nothing preposterous about it. It is something I have heard over and over. Given what is at stake and the tremendous amount of corruption that exists in both the public and private sectors in Italy, it might be more preposterous to expect GR to be squeaky clean. ← Sorry Swiss Chef, I certainly did not mean to intimate that GR is 'squeaky clean', even though, given the way things go in Italy it might just be one of the least corrupt organisations around - which is not saying much, I agree Bolasco, who is the editor of the guide, strikes me as a reasonably committed and serious guy; I believe he is honest, though of course one never knows. My point was rather that any dodgy bit in the guide will probably be due not to straightforward party political affilitations, as I thought was being suggested, but rather to that complex and viscous network of friendships and enmities, jealousies and envies, feuds and paybacks that unfortunately characterises many sectors of society in Italy. Also, any less than transparent practice will probably concern a few top end, visible restaurants, those that make media noise. That's why I suggested to judge the guide (which I do not particularly recommend, by the way) by its competence in the reviews of the less famous establishements.

So, of what 'traditional recipe' would this (a central piece from Alajmo's tasting menu) be a 'faithful rendition' : Fegato grasso d’oca caramellato, salsa di albicocche e curry, polvere di grano tostato e menta (Caramelised fois gras, apricot sauce and curry, toasted corn powder and mint?). m.

Come, come, il Manifesto is an old story, now Bonilli (the boss of GR) more than a communist is a Krug drinking aesthete who justifies stratospheric prices in high end restaurants... I find it preposterous to say that politics dictates the judgements in the guide, what do you think, that the inspectors go there and ask the chefs questions about their political inclinations? Or that the chefs show their membership cards, or that they make some secret sign of the underground communist organisation they belong to? That said, the guide must be judged by how it itself judges the middling restaurants - point given or taken anybody will agree that Vissani or Pierangelini are good chefs, the much more difficult thing is to detect good cuisine in the grey zone.

Sorry Fortedei, what exactly is your point? Ciao m

Ciao I quite agree that traditonal Italian dishes are generally 'simplistic', but I am not sure simplicity (simplisticness?) is the marker of 'traditional'. Let's take an up to date example right at the top. According to the Gambero Rosso guide (just come out) Pierangelini is the top Italian chef and Vissani is number two, together with Alajmo. Vissani can put eight main flavours in a dish (and is thus accused of being a 'speziere'). Pierangelini's most famous dish is 'passatina di ceci with gamberi': can't get more simplistic than that! Now would you say that Pierangelini does traditional cuisine whereas Vissani does modern? I am not so sure. And what about Marchesi? Risotto oro e zafferano is also quite 'simplistic', nevertheless it's hard -or it was hard at the time it was invented - to class it firmly as traditional, there was something clearly modern, almost pathbreaking, in that dish. So - as ever - I don't think the distinction traditional/modern can be boiled down to a simple formula. There is a vast range between the extremes, and there is a richness of dimensions - many ways to be modern, or traditional, or both. And let's not forget that flavour is obviously important but is not everything, notably in modern cuisine - whatever the limitations of our tongues, our noses and eyes can do a lot in the meanwhile!

I have also heard very good things about Pizza Metro in Clapham, by people I trust (the staff of a couple of fine dining Italian restaurants in London) - but have never managed to go that far...

I think this: is interesting to get deeper into the concept of 'traditional Italian' or 'regional' cuisine. I ate in San Domenico a few months ago, and, contrary to you, I found it sooo unreconstructedly Emilian. This is not because people from Emilia have traditionally eaten 'egg in raviolo'. But because most of what the chef cooked, including the famous 'egg in raviolo', bore the marks of Emilian taste and tradition: the opulence in the dish, the imbalance of the flavours towards fat, the generosity of the portions. These are things that, I think, mark this restaurant as 'regional' and 'traditional' in its own way (and a raviolo as signature dish definitely marks it as Italian). Certainly it is one million miles from the 'modern', lightened versions of traditional recipes that you find in many high end Italian restaurants of 'traditional' inclination (to be concrete, the Michelin starred Malga Panna and Orso Grigio in Trentino are both perfect and easily identified regional examples). So which is more traditional: Malga Panna that offers the eternal deer with polenta, but cooked and presented in a modern way, or San Domenico that gives you the cheffy egg in raviolo, but covered with copious butter just as granny would have done?

Hi Pontormo, judging from London, I'd say yes. For example, a few months ago I remember seeing on the dessert list of Via Condotti (chef Pasquale Amico), items ranging from bunet (Piedmont) to baba' (Campania) to Seadas (Sardinia). One does not see this frequently in establishments of similar level in Italy. m.

I think chefs have to respond both to their inclinations and inspirations, and to the demand of the local market (no less an authority than Escoffier berates chefs that are not responsive to the customers' tastes). As an Italian living in London, for example, I find it amazing how much more 'traditional' fine Italian chefs are here than in Italy, which agrees with a previous poster's observation about NY. They are clearly responding to the demands of a public who is in search of 'real Italian' food and would not recognise it any more as Italian if it were too much oriented towards 'modernity'. However, when Italian gourmets visit London and go to, say, Locanda Locatelli, their reaction is often: 'good, but he cooks like 20 years ago'. This is because Italian gourmets have had their granny's and mummy's and trattoria food for so many years that now they'd like something different - they don't want to spend 70 pounds per head at Locatelli and feel they're having granny's and mummy's and trattoria cuisine. Locatelli himself probably would cook differently in Italy. However the crucial point is that it is obviously much a matter of degrees, there isn't only 'tradition' vs 'modernity', but there is rather a continuum betwen the two, along which one will have her personal favourite point: but it would be silly not to sample more extreme variations on either side of the favourite style. So, for example, although it is not my absolutely favourite cusine, I like Locatelli and think he cooks supremely well, and his restaurant is perfect for a certain type of experience. Personally, the Italian restaurants I like best are those that practice a cuisine which is strongly rooted in tradition, with the raw materials fully left to express their original textures and flavours, and without superfluous complications, but which is still capable of surprising you somehow. Probably the 'rice with gold' by Marchesi remains emblematic in this respect (yet it is an old dish now!). But I am very grateful to the many chefs whose sensibility leads them to express a cusine different from this ideal point of mine; the most dreaded thing would be uniformity of style all around.

For something a little tacky, but (I am told) with good cusine and real 'experience' value, allowing you to mix with 'la creme' of the beautiful Milanese crowd, there is 'Gold', recently set up by Dolce and Gabbana, the fashion gurus. It is a large establishment, not research cuisine, but top ingredients and classy presentation. Maybe good for lunch, plan around 40 Euros in the Bistrot and 80+ in the retaurant. Of course in Milan a gourmet interested in haute cusine should consider a visit to the multi-starred Carlo Cracco Ristorante. Cracco is one of the most talked about chefs in Italy. Plan to spend a lot. Il Luogo di Aimo e Nadia (1 Michelin star) also has very good reports, an elegant setting with elegant cuisine, around a 100 euros. For a much simpler and less expensive place, very intimate and with simple, good Sicilian cuisine, you can try: Merluzzo Felice di Milano, Via Lazzaro Papi, 6. I have actually been in this one more than once and have always felt happy. The desserts (cannoli) are luscious. Book in advance as the place is small. Enjoy, man

As an Italian (though living in London since time immemorial) and therefore a daily pasta-eater, I find the previous comments on pasta interesting and very perceptive. It agrees with my experience that often one finds marvellous pasta dishes in humbler places, and slightly underwheming dishes in posher ones. Though I've never been to a three starred restaurant, it is true that superior chefs sometimes find it hard to insert in the pasta dish that necessary earthiness (which does not mean heaviness). Now I frequent more London restaurants than ones in Italy, but a memorable one I had in Italy recently is this one (Linguine Setaro with 'clams' and courgettes), at Ristorante l'Ortica on Lake Garda (unfortunately quite far from Rome). Note the quantity of clams, which many multi-starred chefs would refrain from putting in the dish. Man

How nice, I came here to ask for restaurants in Budapests (which I'll visit in a week) and found this thread all ready... Zaelic, does Alabardos fall in the tourist trap category too? Thanks, man

I have only tried it (repeatedly) in Gatwick airport so it may not be the best sample, although given the business model I expect the offering to be pretty standardised. For me, it is not sushi, the fish being quite oxidised and lacking the freshness of real sushi. They claim that nothing stays on the belt for more than two hours - however one has to see how long and in what conditions the slices of tuna etc. are kept before being put on the belt! Nevertheless, as I said, I went more than once when in the airport. This is because as airport food I find Yo Sushi of good quality and definitely good value for money. But only as airport food - I would not dream of going to one in town. Man