Jump to content

Steve Plotnicki

legacy participant
  • Posts

    5,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve Plotnicki

  1. Tony-Gee you'e going to make me argue the other way! No I agree with most of what you say. But since you don't understand the people we are talking about, or clearly haven't read the article the quote is from, let me put it into context for you (it's good reading by the way.) The writer (Gopnik) moved his family to France in the mid 90's to be a foreign correspondent for The New Yorker Magazine. Most of the articles (if not all of them,) are about exactly the subjects you just wrote about. But the articles begin from the point of view that once upon a time France was indeed culturally dominant. Art, cooking, culturally accepting (American jazz musicians emmigrating to France in the 50's-70's,) even their language was arguably the most beautiful. And the French had spent the last century calculating ways to keep their culutral dominance. That's where the codifications of various things come into play. Now despite the fact that the writer loves Paris, and throroughly enjoys all the quirks and idiosyncracies of the French way of life that are calculated to improve the quality of one's life, he pretty much finds France to be a system of life that is ill-equiped to deal with many issues that arise in the modern day world. The curry is just one of them. Another one (and you raised this in your response,) is that much to the horror of the French, the Internet is mainly for english speakers. In fact, and this is the big one, globalization is mainly for english speakers. You know I can't think of a French person who participates in this chatroom aside from Marc Cosnard and he is hardly a good example of someone French. Are there any? And in the wine chatrooms I participate in, there are currently no French people I know of who participate. And in the past, I can only think of one. Yet there are members who come from almost every country in Europe. Going a little past the point but maybe somewhat helpful, the book(which is a compendium of the articles) in its underpinnings really isn't about Paris, it is about New York. And though the writer claims he wants to understand what made/makes Paris tick and is tired of the NYC way of life, he has really gone to Paris so he can better understand why we New Yorkers have chosen to live the style of life we do. And in my opinion his conclusion is that Paris or France if you will, created a system of life based on the realities of the world in the early 20th century. And through the century they kept tweaking their system, revinventing it and it allowed them to keep ahead of the Jonses so to speak. In fact, in the same article as the curry, they discuss how Nouvelle Cuisine, which the French claimed to be a new methodology of cooking was in reality nothing more than classical French technique modernized. And while they tried to promote the lightening of sauces as "new technique," in reality it was the same old thing but simply modified. And the curry powder is symbolic of the fact that this time, the ways they needed to change were more complex than what they had to do in the past and they were trying to take the easy way out. Which I believe is another point you made. As for their relaxing have any positive concequences. I highly doubt it. Once you find a perfect system for doing things, life becomes about maintaining the system. Isn't that the basis for all religion? Just look at England, once they were able to convince you punters as to the ways wealth should be distributed, the Brits have spent centuries maintaining that system and to the defiance of logic, got the public to go along with maintaining it that way. Now don't take any of this criticism about France, by either myself or any of the writers we mention to think we don't like the place. We love the place and I think to a man we would all say that we love being there and we love that silly French way of life, But. and it is why I keep using opera as the metaphor because it is an artform which exhausted the harmonic possibilities for repetoire, it is a way of life that is complete. What I mean by complete is that they will not improve on it in a way that has serious cultural impact on the rest of the world. And just look around you and see where the chefs everyone talks about come from and/or practice their craft.
  2. Bux- How can that quote change the way you feel about the book? It is neither significant enough to the point of the book, nor is it radically different than any other example used in the book. In fact, that quote is pretty much in line with the tone of the entire book. It isn't computing to me. Do you have a thing with Hoffman? I can think of 1000 things in France that are dated where the French are staunchly refusing to change when they should. That quote is just Hoffman's take on it. In fact, even if he is wrong about Pacaud's dish I get the gist of the point. What's the big deal?
  3. Bux-Well now the truth comes out. If you don't buy the premise for the book, you certainly can't find Hoffman's quote to add much weight to the argument that France is slowly crumbling like a stale cracker.
  4. Steve - We are just not going to agree. There are three basic disagreements. One, you keep saying that Hoffman isn't qualified to be an expert on the subject. Gopnik thinks he's capable and so do I. I mean if it was Floyd Cardoz's quote, would you be happier? Madhur Jaffrey's? You then say that it is okay for a chef to sprinkle any powder on a dish he wants. I disagree. You might be allowed to put mayonaisse on a pastrami sandwaich but you can't do it. Not unless you want to come off as a boob who doesn't understand pastrami. Or maybe we should put grated cheese on our spaghetti with clam sauce. Yes you could do it. But any chef that sent a waiter over to my table to douse my clam sauce with grated cheese would immediately go onto my "doesn't understand clam sauce" list. You then say that the standard should be how the dish tastes. Well I don't think that is the standard either. To use my favorite example, opera, if I have paid $250 for Dress Circle seats to see Carmen I do not expect Aretha Franklin to sing the Habanera. Even if she sounds good doing it. I came to see opera. That means I expect to see people with certain technique be proficient at applying it to an operatic repetoire. The final point which I think you're missing isn't Hoffman's quote, but Gopnik's point in writing the article which is that the world is passing France by. In fact it's the entire point of the book. The curry quote is just one more example among countless ones where Gopnik points out that France is losing, or has lost its cultural supremacy over the western world. And the point about Pacaud (from Gopnik's perspective, not Hoffman's,) is that here is an ingredient that chefs outside of France have mastered, yet French chefs haven't seem to have mastered it. And worse, they don't see to have any desire to learn how to master it.
  5. Robert-You are correct about that trip which was organized by GM. In fact I ate at L'Oasis after Outhier returned and added the Asian flourishes to his menu. The meal was only fair. Outhier was already older and had come out of retirement to attempt his "fusion" cuisine. I am sure if he were a younger man, he would have kept at it. The telling thing about your post is how J-G might have picked up the germ at L'Oasis. But the more telling thing is how none of the others had their head turned. Bux-You sound like someone who likes opera complaining that kids who play rock & roll do so because they don't understand opera. But the real truth about why kids play R&R instead of opera is that opera has no relevence to their lives. That is the ultimate point of Gopnik's article. While French cooks cook great, their cooking is losing relevence.
  6. "The proof is still in the pudding, not in the intention. And though I sing Beatles songs operatically in the shower, I don't record them." Steve Shaw-I disagree with that. You might like the way Pacaud's curry dish tastes, and you might also like the way Pavarotti sings My Way. But the fact that you like them has no bearing on why Pacaud used curry or why Pavarotti sang a pop song. Those examples might not offend you (they don't offend me either), but they do offend many people and I can understand why and how they are offended. In this instance, even though I haven't tasted the dish Hoffman is complaining about, mu gut tells me that Pacaud had it all wrong because of the sprinkling. I've never seen curry applied to a dish. But maybe I'm wrong. But certainly Hoffman is entitled to feel that way about it isn't he? Bux-You keep wanting the standard to be that curry has been used in French cuisine for an entire century. And again that isn't the standard. Hoffman is complaining that Pacaud applied it to the dish and didn't integrate it properly. Again, Hoffman is entitled to feel that way about it isn't he? You want to say it is superb and Hoffman thinks it isn't. I ate at L'Ambroisie last year and found it pretty average. In fact I had a dish with curry and I can tell you the curry sauce at Union Pacific was ten times better than what Pacaud served me. If I blindfolded ten people and served them DiSpirito's Monkfish in a curry sauce and one of Pacaud's curried dishes I bet you that a vast majority of them would say Rocco's was more delicious. But if I served them with the blindfold off, I bet the numbers would change because my god, how could one of the world's greatest chefs, or as you said, an accomplished chef... Hoffman was just brave enough to tell the truth. Rocco knows curry better than Pacaud. That brings us to the real point. There has never been an instance in modern day cooking (call it the entire 20th century) where French chefs didn't dominate culinary technique. Why is it that a guy like Rocco can know more than Pacaud?
  7. Steve-Your arguments about the opera singer are all fine except for one thing. Hoffman doesn't feel that way about it. And neither do I. Being a professional in that industry, I can tell you that the reason that opera singers sing contemporary songs is to make their recordings more accessable to people who do not understand classical music. It's purely commercial. And while I don't hold that against them, I think it's a shame on many levels that they need to stoop to that level to sell recordings and that they just can't rely on the art they practice in an appropriate context. The reason I keep using opera as an example is because I think what happened to opera is analagous to what is happening to French cuisine. Opera is unique in that it was a high art form that was popular among entire European populations. It was distributed to the masses as high art, during a time when the masses were being taught that the appreciation of high art is something they should aspire to. That market dynamic peaked within the half century after the advent of the recording. Now there was a way to distribute Caruso, even if most peope couldn't even get to see an opera. But what was good for opera in the beggining, turned out bad for opera in the end. And just like the Guttenburg printing press was co-opted by people who didn't believe in god, recording equipment was co-opted by plain folk who said, "opera, hell no, I want to play the blues!" And once the public got to vote with their hard earned dollars, they eschewed opera for Elvis. And the result a century later is that if opera wasn't underwritten by corportaions and benefactors, it probably wouldn't be performed anymore. It is a museum piece. And all attempts to modernize opera through the style of performence or the furtherance of the repetoire by modern composers has fallen on deaf (commercially) ears. Unless you want to call Tommy and Arthur operas? The food equivelent of what I just described was routed through the cookbook business and the TV industry. Maybe you couldn't get to taste Bocuse's truffle soup. But you could get the recipe in print, and you could see him make it on television. Since food no matter how high the artform is ultimately sustenance, one could make the soup in their kitchen. This is the point where food and music diverge. Cooking is something you practice and singing is something you listen to (though I know you sing Beatle songs in an operatic style in the shower Shaw.) I hate to go further because this point is deserving of its own thread. And in fact, I think this point is the single most important conversation about food today. And the point ultimately isn't whether Pacaud was right, wrong, informed, misinformed, arrogant etc., or whether fusion is a good word, bad word, good or bad cooking style. The point is why the revolution in food today is occuring outside of France? And all Hoffman does is point out one example of how France is falling behind in cooking technique. And before someone points to the advancement of the artform by chefs like Passard and Guy Martin, they have advanced it like classical music had been advanced. There aren't a slew of chefs over the world who have brought Passard's approach to distant shores and have revolutionized the local eating scene. But people in NY, London, Sydney are copying Adria's technique or Nobu or Tesuya's technique. Pacaud's use of curry is merely an example of why French chefs aren't driving the train. It isn't a statement that they don't cook well (including the dish in question.) But it is a statement about why people are beginning to care less about it.
  8. Steve - For a guy who is a lawyer (and this coming from a guy who is a client,) I thought I made myself clear. Pacaud intended to make his cuisine appear modern by using a "foreign" spice, just like an opera singer wants to appear contemporary by including a Beatle's song on his recording. So I do not agree with you that the relevent intent behind a dish is limited. Of course that doesn't mean the dish tastes bad. Aside from the other context I put the quote in vis-a-vis the cous cous, if I recall correctly another aspect of the article was the statement that nouvelle cuisine wasn't really anything new, just a rehashing of the same old French technique in a slightly revamped format and this time French chefs had hit the wall. Suvir's last response deals with the other aspect of Hoffman's/Gopnik's point. Last year when I ate at Union Pacaific, they had this great Monkfish in Curry Sauce on the menu. It was so good I asked the waiter if they would tell me where they got curry powder. He came back and said they made it fresh every day so I asked him for the recipe. He came back and told me Rocco told him they were still tinkering with the recipe and if I left my address they would send it to me when they were happy with the proportions. Let's just say that Hofman was implying that Pacaud didn't approach his curry powder with that much care (not saying whether he does or doesn't but Hoffman certainly believes so.) But there were now chefs out there who did care. And even worse, those were the chefs the public seemed to be turning their intention to.
  9. Steve KLC - I wasn't going to respond to this thread because it is mostly about semantics, but on rereading your response I found the following nit to pick. You say that sprinkling curry powder on a dish is no different than sprinkling salt or pepper on a dish. And I guess that is where opinions part. You believe that Pacaud is using curry just as another spice. Hoffman believes (and I agree with this), that he was using it to appear modern. It's not the use of the curry that is relevent, it is the intent behind its use. His choice of curry and not say, ras-al-hanout was simply fashionable. Hoffman's other point is a more simple one. All he says is that from tasting this dish, he concluded that Pacaud didn't understand the theory of curry. Now maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong but, I don't think Hoffman was lying about it. That's how it came off to him. But to take it a step further, he thinks there are many chefs out there (and he uses himself as an example) who are studying how to do it properly. And if he wants to eat a dish with curry, he would have gone to a restaurant someone who understands it runs, not L'Ambroisie. That is sort of in line with my opera singer/Broadway show tune theory. I might want to hear Some Enchanted Evening performed, but not by Placido Domingo. Hoffman's quote in the context of the article isn't intended by Gopnik to indict Pacaud, it is intended to indict France. It is part of a series of points that Gopnik makes about how France does a poor job of integrating outside influences into its culture. If I recall correctly, the big example shown is how not a single top chef had managed to integrate cous cous into the cuisine. I mean how hard would that be? When I was in London two weeks ago I had dinner at Tamarind. It was Valentine's Day and they had a set menu. One of the dishes was Sea Bass atop something called Uppava (I'm sure Suvir and Simon will have lots to say about that ingredient). They coated an entire dinner plate with a thin layer of this grain, then coated it with a yellow spicy sauce and laid a rectangle of sea bass on top. It looked just like something you would get at Gordon Ramsey. I took one bite and said to myself this is cous cous. I called the waiter over and asked him what it was and he said semolina. Bingo. I tell this story because in my 25 years of French travel, I've never had a starred chef serve me cous cous in any fashion. Pasta, polenta, rice but cous cous? Never. I mean 5 million North Africans live in France and still no cous cous in ther cuisine. And look how easy it is. Bernard Pacaud could have served the exact same dish as Tamarind if the spicing on the sauce was diferent.
  10. [i've never had great fusion food] Bux-I assume you are using the word "great" as in the type of great food you would get in a 3 star place. Well I don't think that's a fair comment. I don't think any of the fusion chefs are attempting to cook at that level. In fact, one of things about fusion cuisine is that the format is less formal than French cuisine. I mean that's one of the big attractions for people. I started to post a response to the fusion thread on the India board and decided not to as I found Shaw summed it up in one byte. But I was going to mention how I find it truly unbelievable that French chefs, especially ones who traveled to Japan and saw sushi cuisine, didn't come back to France and create a strain of French cuisine based on raw/cured/dressed fish. I mean Alberto Ciarla was doing it in Rome when I went there on my honeymoon 19 years ago. And now the culture of tartars, seviches, sushi/sashimi type services etc. is everywhere around us. But the French chefs completely missed the boat on this one. And they were there. How could that be? In fact, the French, who serve their meat raw, still overcook tuna. Peter-Never heard of that one. Did that guy write, "Ich bin ein Berliner?"
  11. Steve Plotnicki

    Wine Prices

    Beachfan-The answer is to mainly frequent places that allow BYO. If that doesn't work for you (I mean the corkage can be $30 by itself), try and view wine as a fixed cost part of the meal that has no relation to the cost of a bottle at retail. If wine is going to be $40 of each bill, get the best $40 can buy and suck it up. There really isn't any other good solution.
  12. Bux-But I think Hoffman's point is valid. He is pointing out that French chefs didn't take the time to learn the basis of cooking with curry. And in the context of Gopnik's article, which is about how the new cooking techniques were being developed outside of France, I don't understand why it is inappropriate. Maybe it isn't clear to you because you liked the way the dish tasted. But to me when I read it I knew exactly what Gopnik meant. Floyd Cardoz and Raji Jallepalli did not go to Paris to work on fusing Indian and French cuisine. They came to the states. Hoffman's point, and I don't think there is anything arrogant about it because it happens to be true, is that they didn't do it in France. And the reason they didn't do it there was because the important chefs like Pacaud were only interested in cooking French food. You know there is a reason that all the great fusion restaurants happened outside of France. And there is a reason that the Club Gascon people had to go to a place like London to offer Gascon cuisine in a tapas format. France is not a place that is conducive to change.
  13. Rosie-I didn't say that Jerseyites aren't sophisticated. I just said that New Yorkers are *more* sophisticated. Steve-Bid sounds good for the second dinner. How about June?
  14. Bux-I wrote an entire response to you. Clicked the post button and then the system crashed and it was lost in the black hole. Let me try again. The reason you and Hoffman don't agree is that you are evaluating Pacaud's use of curry powder from the point of view of whether it tastes good, Hoffman is saying it is symbolic of how out of touch Pacaud is from what the world is interested in. Hoffman asks why he (meaning Hoffman) has read Madhur Jaffrey and Pacaud hasn't? And the inference he is drawing says that if Pacaud had read her, he would never use curry that way. The fact that a spritz of curry powder in a sauce makes it taste good isn't the point. Hoffman doesn't say it tastes bad. He says using curry that way infuriates him because it is obvious (to him) that Pacaud doesn't understand curry theory. Now to me that's a valid point. You know the world of food and art is replete with examples of people applying the wrong technique to things. How about opera singers singing Broadway show tunes. In my best baritone------To Drrrrrrrreammmmmm the Impahsssssssibul Dreeeeeeeeeeeeam To fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhhhhht...... (imagine me shaking the computer screen to replicate vibrato.) That is what Hoffman's point is. Not that opera singers can't sing show tunes. But that it's an inappropriate use of their technique. But at least opera singers have show tunes foisted on them by their record companies who want to sell more units. At L'Ambroisie, a place where the art of cooking is supposedly at it's highest level, how could someone like Pacaud not realize that understanding curry takes the same amount of effort as understanding the way you use blood in a sauce for hare. If it was a French ingredient, Pacaud would treat it with respect. But curry is Indian. It's just a spice powder to him. He doesn't show it the same level of respect. To me that point comes through loud and clear. Even if the dish at L'Ambroisie tastes good.
  15. Tony - Thanks alot for the compliment. But I disagree with you about the ratings at the end. From reading the reviews, there is no way of knowing that I rate CG higher than the Grill Room. I actually thought long and hard about that one before doing it. And I would have put CG in the A catagory if the place and the food were slightly more formal. If there is any difference between a tasting menu and tapas, these guys have gone to the edge. But still, I would say they are still on the tapas side. So the ratings do have some importance. I also think there are lots of people who think of things as numbers and not through words. Maybe the Brits are bunch of orators but the French are a bunch of mathematicians. As for The Grill Room, it has the worst decor in the world. And the chairs are so uncomfortable. Everytime I go in there (almost always for breakfast,) it's like I want to give them some hip interior designers business card. But you would be surprised how many people eat dinner there each night. But I still think lunch is their bigger meal. even on weekdays. Adam & Simon - How dare you speak of something as brutish as beer in such a sophisticated post. Where do you guys think you are, England?
  16. Bux-You and Hoffman just aren't going to agree. You think it was a proper use of curry. And he thinks the use in that situation is symbolic of French chefs not being open to non-French cooking techniques. And although I can't give you a first hand recounting of whether it's a proper use or not, for me Hoffman made his point because I understand completely what it means for the wrong technique to be applied to something. Like an opera singer singing Beatle songs. You know I'm one of the biggest Francophiles around, but it would be dishonest of me not to admit that French cooking has become rigid and antiquated in many ways. If you look around and see who the cutting edge chefs are, and where they are, many of them are not in France. I mean within 20 miles of the French/Spanish border, both in the North and the South, that's where the cutting edge seems to be residing. And it isn't an accident that it happens to be on the other side of the border. And it's not an accident that Pascal Arrignac from Club Gascon chose London as the place to test his formula and not Paris. And that's what Peter Hoffman's point is really about. Not that curry powder used that way is improper, curry powder used that way is old fashioned. Why? Because we understand curry now. Madhur Jaffrey explained it to all us Anglos. We had read the book and Pacaud didn't. It used to be the other way around.
  17. Steve Plotnicki

    Wine cellar

    Adam-The classic British example of a cellar is to buy twice the amount of wine you are going to drink. Then by the time it is ageworthy, and in reality usually somewhat sooner, you can sell half and drink for free less the cost of money for the term of holding the stock. This practice worked better in days of yore as the market went through a price correction over the last 5 years and price growth has slowed. But of course, this methodology only works well when you buy the type of wine that has secondary market value like good clarets. But I guess it will work with any ageable wine. I mean what about leaving your cellar to heirs?
  18. Wilfrid-Actually I had dinner at J. Sheekey's on the Tuesday night before I went to CG. No Potted Prawns but I did have a rather large Dover Sole avec accoutrements. It was good but I have to admit that the Sole I get at Le Suquet is usually firmer and I find it more enjoyable. The quality and qualities of Sole seem to be a function of where the fish swim in the channel. In fact the sole you get at Le Dome in Paris, which comes from the Ile d'Yeaux, is firmer than any other version I ever had. This fish was very soft and was a bit more similar to what we can get in the states. But I will try the potted prawns next time.
  19. Adam-Can't help you with the cost because I didn't pay. But I emailed the host and asked him to dig up the receipt. So hold on. As for it being the logical extension of a tasting menu, what makes this different is that tasting menus are usually reserved for haute cuisine. What they have done here is to serve peasant food like cassoulet in tasting size portions. I can't think of anyone else who does that. Simon-The caramelized foie gras with chocolate was good if not invariably gimmicky like all those "off" dishes are. But it allowed them to cook the foie to a firmer texture. Almost to the point where it was like the texture of a soft chocolate itself. I think that top quality foie was imperative for that dish so that it became firm, yet stayed creamy with the extra cooking time it needed to become that consistancy. And the sheet of chocolate atop was somewhat more brittle than the foie and created a good balance.
  20. Rachel-Who was making fun of the dinner? I was just commenting on how New Yorkers are too sophisticated to eat Riodizio. And the ones who do won't frequent places that use longer than 9 inch skewers. It's gauche. Bux-King Wu it is. I had a best friend whose parents used to take us there when I was 15. Later on when I got older I used to take my dates there. The sizzling rice soup always aroused them. JHLurie-No vests at the NYC dinner. But wait a second. Does Fat Guy have a vest in that picture? Or is that a hat? Or is it a vesthat? Wilfrid-Dim Sum GoGo is a good place for a dinner because it is a foodie's dream. It's the dipping sauces that do it. And we will be able to get tons of interesting food at a good price. AHR-I think Sripiphai is a bad place for this type of dinner. I mean the food is fabulous, vying for the best ethnic in the city. But the room is bad. You need a place where people can get up and talk to other people. One of the worst things about the London dinner was that the room wasn't much larger than the table we were sitting at. And it wasn't comfortable to get up and walk around to the other side of the table to talk to people.
  21. Bux - I just reread Hoffman's quote. What he says is that Pacaud's use of curry as a powder you shake on food was insular. He goes on to say that curry isn't just a spice, it's a complete style or technique of cooking, and that he suspected that Pacaud had never read Madhur Jaffrey etc and didn't really understand it. That is exactly in line with the point I was trying to make about the quote which is that Pacaud had applied French technique to a foreign spice mixture. And without seeing them, I would bet that every recipe you looked at from Julia Childs to Fernand Point used curry powder as nothing more than an additive. But he also says that the technique that Pacaud applied to his hare with blood sauce was exceptional. All he wanted it to be was what I believe he said. So using whether it tasted good to you or not isn't the measure that Hoffman was using. He was pointing out the arrogance of French cooking in that they thought they could incorporate an ingredient an entire technique of cooking was based on by just sprinkling it on food. And not have to bother to really learn the technique neccessary to apply to it. Just imagine if the roles were reversed and an Indian chef at the last minute used the blood of a hare to thicken a dish. Can you imagine what Pacaud might have said when tasting it? "How ken he use zee blood zis vay? French cooking dezerves morh respecta." But that's just the immediate point. The larger point being made was the same one Marc Cosnard made in the Guy Savoy thread last night. And that is that France is not a melting pot. And because they only do things the French way, the cuisine is becoming antiquated. Not antiquated in terms of people stopping to use it. Antiquated in terms of it being the culinary equivalent of classical music. And you have to look at Hoffman's quote in that light.
  22. After the Wednesday night eGullet dinner at La Trouvaille, along with a small after-dinner dinner a few of us had at Maroush on the Edgeware Road, Thursday lunch came around pretty quickly and there I was in a cab going from Fitzrovia to Smithfield's Market. I was going to be the lunch guest of a wine dealer who had taken the train in from Suffolk or Norfolk or one of those English counties. A few days earlier when he asked me where I wanted to lunch, I thought it through for a bit, and having failed miserably at getting a reservation at Club Gascon for dinner that night (it was Valentine’s Day,) asked about lunch. A few minutes later I received an email confirming lunch. I guess Londoners aren’t so romantic at lunchtime. My host was waiting for me when I arrived and was seated at the front table. Club Gascon was different than I imagined. In London, I’m so used to seeing Conranesque restaurant installations everywhere. But Club Gascon was more in the style of French hip/moderne wine bar. A slightly different look that was as refreshing to the eye as the food we were about to eat would be to the palate. Ah here is the new London. For those who haven’t been, Club Gascon serves food from the Gascogne region of France. But the twist is that it is served in tapas size portions. I believe there are 40 different dishes on the carte. And to go with the extensive selection of dishes they have a wine list with a stunning array of small producer wines from the southwest regions of France. Clearly a place to find that odd bottle of Cahors you’ve been looking for. But the highlight of the restaurant is their list of foie gras dishes. They offer 6-8 cold choices and another 6-8 hot ones. If I have the story straight, our waiter told us that the secret to the place is that the chefs father is a foie gras producer in Gascony and he will only use Papa’s foie. We ate the following, Gascon Ham Celeriac puree with truffled vinaigrette Pipperade de Basquaise avec Jambon Foie Gras Terrine with Dates Foie Gras Chaud avec Granite Citron Zander avec Tomates Confite Cassoulet Sweet Caramelized Foie Gras under a sheet of Chocolate Eating an entire meal in bite size portions was a new one for me. I quite liked it. Having just a taste of cassoulet was sufficient. I have long held that the entrees in top places are boring. I mean what can you do with a hunk of meat? No matter what, it’s meat. And this was different than your basic assortment of tapas which I find to be nothing more than a bunch of hors d’oeuvres. These were laid out to be courses. By far the foie gras courses were the best. The cold terrine had small bits of fruit laid between the strips of foie and a little squoosh came with each bite. Then the hot foie gras came with a small dish of lemon ices and a tiny spoon so you could put a bit atop the foie. Hot foie, cold ice, sounds more like sex than food eh? But it was a super combo that was spectacularly modern and made me think of my meal at The Fat Duck more than anything else. And bravo Papa for that smooth as silk foie. And it isn’t that the other courses weren’t good, with the Zander (a fish related to Sandre?) being especially good. It’s just that without the foie, they would be just another neo/modern/wine bar/sort of trendy contender. A few additional things stuck out to me. The style, tempo and portion size compared to principal ingredient in a dish really made me evaluate what I was eating. Suddenly I realized that Gascogne is just a region away from the Basque country and then it made a bit more sense. Gee how many hundreds of years has it taken someone in France to figure out that Gascon cuisine can be deconstructed and reconstituted in this format? But the other thing that struck me, and it is going to make certain people laugh, is that this was the truly ala carte experience that a place like Craft strives for. What ala carte really means isn’t that everything can be ordered separately, the contemporary meaning of ala carte is that the menu is constructed in such a way that everything gets ordered so you can taste it all. Including the entrees. And let’s not discount the wine we drank. For a white, we ordered a half bottle of 1999 Domaine Castera which was refreshing and sort of spritzy. But my host brought a bottle of 1978 Jasmin Cote Rotie that was really special. The only non-Guigal single vineyard Cote Rotie I’ve had that is that old that has had any real life to it. And this bottle was vibrant. A few bravos for creativity and give Club Gascon a rating of [b++] Fast forward to Sunday 10 days later. I had just finished a five-day eating binge in France, which included a few days acting as a human repository for the local trifalao (sp?) in the Southern Rhone, as well as the Guy Savoy meal in Paris (all to be written up in a separate thread.) But when I arrived in London it was cold and rainy. I went out for a while to see the Paris, Center of the Arts 1900-1968 exhibit (poor) at the Royal Academy and it was cold down to the bone. I was having dinner with someone who works for me and I called him and said to come to the hotel at 7:30. “If it’s really bad out we are just going to eat in.” He showed up on time, said it was really bad out, and we walked a few steps into The Grill Room. Does anyone eat Sunday dinner in London or do they only eat lunch? When I was checking in, in anticipation of possibly having dinner there that night I poked my head into the place and it was packed. Not more than six tables had diners at it on Sunday night. But the room was sparkling, with tall silver candelabras and servers in tails. And there was even a guy a few tables away who was regaling his dinner guests with stories about his conversations with Churchill. Now here is the other London. As far away from Club Gascon as one could possibly imagine. And it wasn’t just the style or the décor that was different. For my first course I ordered the Grilled Scallops served with a Brandade de Morue and a Tomato Concasse. It arrived a while later composed into a round. The tomatoes on the bottom, then a layer of brandade with the scallops laid across the top. I took a bite and I found that I had before me, all in a single dish, the perfect example of the difference between a French kitchen and an English one. Coarse. That’s the right word for it. The dish was coarse. Everything about it. The tomatoes were chopped up coarsely and the brandade wasn’t smooth. And the scallops? Well they were scallops. But they were placed atop the dish in a sort of, let’s just pile the scallops on until the brandade is covered way. They sort of overlapped each other. If the same dish came out of a French kitchen it would have been the model of smoothness, especially the brandade. And somehow the kitchen would have gone to the trouble of trimming the edges of the scallops in order to get a better fit. And don’t take any of this to mean that it was bad or that I didn’t like it. It was quite good. But it was so masculine in style. And compared to my prior weeks dining experiences was a little shocking. My dinner companion had the Potted Prawns. He said it was tough to get good ones these days. I didn’t taste his. But they were small and brown. I hope that means something to those of you who like potted prawns. We moved onto our mains. My guest had the Calves Liver. It looked nice and caramelized and was covered with caramelized onions. Too bad I don’t like the stuff. But it looked good. I decided to go traditional and I ordered the roast beef. Actually, I wanted to have something that is served from the trolley. I’m a sucker for trolley service. I’m convinced that things that come from the trolley taste better. In fact I would be happy if they just used the trolley as a way to deliver and serve me food that came from the kitchen. The captain would lift the cover of the trolley and out would jump a waiter holding my entrée who would say “Your food sir.” I used to have someone who worked for me who would always order whatever was on the trolley. The waiter would ask him what he wanted for his main course and he would say, “I’ll take whatever you have under there.” The thing about trolleys is that they usually have lots of stuff under those heavy lids. This one had a leg of lamb, a large sirloin steak, and a standing rib roast that must have been at least 6 or 7 ribs long. I hate to admit this because I don’t want to sound foolish, but I had never seen a standing rib roast that was actually standing before. I mean my father was a butcher and he used to bring rib roasts home all of the time. We had them most Fridays. But a standing rib roast was really special and was what he brought home for a holiday. It was a much larger roast. But when my mother served it, it was lying down. And so were all the other versions I had ever seen regardless of who prepared it. I guess they couldn’t call it Lying Rib Roast. I mean who would buy it with that name? But the most ridiculous part was yet to come because the waiter had to cut it in that position. Leave it to the English to come up with a way to make their servant’s lives more difficult. The guy looked so silly cutting it that way. I mean try and turn your hand palm up, hold a large knife tightly and cut in a line straight across while holding the roast still with a long fork in your other hand. And thin slices too. He asked me how rare I would like it. I asked him how he intended to find rarer slices since he was near the beginning of the roast and he told me that he would keep cutting until it was rare enough. I just couldn’t let him go on, having visions of a sprained, maybe broken wrist and I told him it was rare enough. But aside from the good fun because of the service, the roast was delicious. And after they set my plate down, another waiter appeared with a tray of different vegetables. And another waiter came along with condiments. There was Tout-Mange, Savoy Cabbage, Green Beans and two types of potatoes. French Mustard, English mustard and Horseradish Sauce. And they were all on my plate along with three succulent slices of roast Aberdeen beef. And so the riddle caused by the scallop first course, and the difference in style between French and English kitchens was solved. What the English lack in finesse, they make up through largesse. Dessert was Rice Pudding and Strawberrys that were surrounded by a ring of heavy cream. And not to forget the wine. A half bottle of 1995 Chateau les Ormes de Pez was drinking fabulously. Ripe and concentrated and similar to my experience with other Bordeaux from 1995, drinking extremely well right now. All in all it was a fun and delicious evening [b+]. I love the contrast of these experiences. It’s one of the things that makes London a good town to eat in. If you add a curry, mezze, posh modern British joint as well as a perfectly done Dover Sole at the right place to the mix, you have a week of it. And not a bad week at that. And I have to admit that this meal was homey in a way I could relate to. It reminded me of what dining used to be like when I was growing up. Not the opulence of the surroundings. You can strip that away. It was the style of the dining experience. And it was a good reminder that in the States, our food culture was originally based on the Anglo experience. An experience I still enjoy every now and then.
  23. Robin - Hey I either think your opinion is credible or I don't. And I'm not the only one who wasn't buying it in this instance. And the place might well might have slipped. But you and Simon are going to have a hard time convincing me. And that is mostly a function of how the post is written. If you notice, nobody jumped down Margaret's throat when she posted her bad review. As for Club Gascon vs Regalade, I can see liking CG better even though the cooking there isn't at the same level of proficiency as Regalade. But they offer a cool and unique experience. But I'm not sure I would feel the same way about it if there were a hundred places like it. It could become trite then. I also think it's easier for CG to be good. I mean I had the sauteed foie gras with lemon ices and for the size of the dish, 3-4 bites, it's easy for it to stay interesting. I don't know how successful it would be if they served you a whole plate of the stuff.
  24. Robert-When I first mentioned Wells, the point wasn't to say she wrote as well as Liebling or Wechsberg but to point out that she had as big an impact as they had. In fact even bigger. You have to think of her like Parker. She organized the regions of France for Anglos. Bux-Yes I am discussing that article. In fact I have discussed the curry quote with Peter Hoffman himself. Peter was pretty thrilled with it. I remember him telling me that he is often interviewed and usually the writer doesn't get the exact gist of the point he is trying to make. But Gopnik (who was a long term customer of his before he moved to Paris,) captured the essence of his point perfectly. And I don't know why that quote bothers you. The point of Pacaud sprinkling curry powder on the dish is to show that the types of ingredients that restaurants needed to use to keep their cuisine current, were poor ingredients to apply French cooking technique to.
  25. Bux-You're talking about the place with the sizzling rice soup right? If so, I was there loads of times in the late sixties and early seventies. And when I mentioned Ping's, that was generic for a Chinatown seafood joint. The place I go to on Division Street, the one that Azimov wrote up. I can't remember the name. That would do as well. But I think that Dim Sum GoGo is the write place. It's a foodie joint and we're just a bunch of foodies. Rosie-Maybe not nice but tru..... :)
×
×
  • Create New...