Gavin Jones

I'm tempted to ask you to explain forms such as singspiel (Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, say) or Sprechstimme (Pierrot Lunaire), where radical departures - and from some points of view simplification - in technique happen. From a certain point of view (Connoisseur) these are not 'Opera', but one would be perverse (historically) to deny them relevance to Opera.

This is a very explicit description of historical change in society. However if one disagrees with the teleological premise one doesn't get very far. An example would be Euclidean geometry, as perfected by, er, Euclid. There is essentially no further progress without starting again from scratch.

You think it would help if he had? Well he wasn't a big Stravinsky lover - if I remember rightly... And there is the particular issue of neo-classicism which is apposite.

I'm wondering if Adorno ever wrote any food criticism.

An alternative reading might be that the balance for 'perfect' italian food is 60%: ingredients/terroir 30%: cooking 10%: service &c whereas for French it is something like 40%: ingredients terroir 35%: cooking 35%:service & c Since little of the focus of 'modern gastronomy' or at least those upon this site appears to be on how to grow the perfect olive/grape/heifer,but rather the latter two components of the cuisine no wonder Italian cuisine is of marginal relevance to 'modern gastronomy'. Actually I made up those proportions and I guess Italian is actually 70/20/10 and French is much more 40/40/20 and haute cuisine is 30/30/40. So anyone who claims terroir as king should reject haute cuisine as a betrayal of the foundation. A step into an aesthetic abysss.

I believe this line also works for royal families.

So how does one apply 'relevant' 'French' technique to the antipasti. Make a terrine?

This is the good idea. What are the canonical dishes of Italian cooking which need to be made 'relevant'. They can then be rewritten in 'relevant' fashion and we can see how much gastronomy has advanced. Reminding me of the British reinventions of say Lasagna in the 70's, with mashed potato substituting for pasta. Now it has been clearly clearly demonstrated that mashed potato (esp. by JR) is better than pasta. So this is a big improvement on the dish.

Just shows Bocuse struggling to escape his peasant roots - and who here would suggest that he is gastronomically relevant?

Thankyou, I shall go to the Don shortly.

And indeed exemplifies an aesthetic. Why then would they adopt the food of their neighbours - the peasants of the Mediterranean coast or the Savoy? What is the histoire de la longue duree account of the Roman Empire?

Though possibly fair to characterise the history of the south of Italy in terms of a 'peasant' economy is this an appropriate caricature of cities such as Milan, Venice, Bologna?

So what relevance do modern gastronomes have for Italian cuisine? The most concrete suggestion is MrP's reiteration of Marinetti's cry to lose the pasta.

Actually these are places I'd recommend - on reflection you're wanting places that I'd avoid. Hmmm.

Goldsmith's Tavern - New Cross You know a place is ok if your feet stick to the floor. Mostly punk on the jukebox, contains a variety of creatures left over from 70's popular culture and a good ska night too. Grave Maurice - Whitechapel The non-yuppified east end & such a lovely name.

The joy & curse of egullet. Analysis ends when you realise it can go on forever.

A failure on the part of the Connoisseuriat? Surely not. So Italian: The best ingredients, the most appropriately cooked. French: The most appropriate ingredients, the best cooked. British: The best ingredients, the most inappropriately cooked? I'm not sure why starch should be disallowed - are we disallowing Japanese food from modern gastronomy?

What is your definition of modern gastronomy? If this depends on technical innovation & cult-of-personality then that was simultaneously created and exposed as absurd by Marinetti in the 20's. I think some of the difficulties of establishing a 'moderne' style of Italian gastronomy were discussed here, particularly by kikujiro

Heston Blumenthal of the Fat Duck has just published a book on Family Food and appears to offer a range of 'child-format' food (lollipops &c.) so that might be appropriate. (I have not dined at his establishment/s).

I will go and offer a cockerel to Asclepius.

Was Simon amongst them? So basically go for the drinks. Very handy to know.

Isn't the ambiguity already in the term 'signature dishes'. If the dish is the autograph, then it is surely implicit in the 'brand' of the author?

Not unlike when I say to my Mother 'Let's go to St. john' and she says 'Oh, Bone Marrow Salad, lovely lovely bone marrow'. I am confused how people promote something which isn't already a brand.

Brand: a particular product .... that identifies a particular producer. an identifying mark esp as proof of ownership to place indelibly in the memory They're from Collins concise which was lying around.

I noticed you subtitled this thread ' A chef's road to fame'.