Steve Plotnicki

Claude - Yes that's correct. But there is no reason to believe that the Dujacs were stored poorly and the others weren't. Another '85 I had a few years back, and which was nowhere ready was the Roty Charmes-Chambertin. And another wine I've had a number of times, and each time it has been disappointingly closed is the Jadot Bonnes Mares. I also bought a case of '85 Roumier Bonnes Mares and Clos Vougeot. The CV is "a point" and needs to be drunk up. The Bonnes Mares has life left to it but is not going to improve IMO.

Actually I'm not comparing them at all. I am asking why there aren't any Indian restaurants performing at the four star level? And if there was, what that would mean to the cuisine and what changes would they have to make? You see I think that Tony, India Girl and Nerissa would say that if I go to a place like Saloos in Lahore, I would find great Indian cuisine. But my gut tells me it still wouldn't be at the standard of the four star restaurants. I believe that every cuisine can turn out a four star version, if the cuisine is pliable, meaning it hasn't hit a logical dead end. I am having a hard time believing that complex spicing routines is what could propel Indian cuisine to that level. My instinct tells me it has to be more then that. But at the same time, to me, places like Tabla and Zaika are closer to it then places like Diwan are. But then the traditionalists say that isn't "real Indian food." Which makes the question, is there such a thing as four star Indian food? Or has it yet to be invented?

Pete - I ate there at least once a year, and sometimes twice a year, every year from about 1993-2001. I used to love going and they could turn out a 3 star meal on occassion and at worst it was 2 1/2. But I see that Christian Willer seems to have reduced his role and I've seen him pictured with a "Chef de Cuisine." They always had a great wine list that was reasonably priced outside of the Bordeauxs. I drank many a bottle of 1996 Niellon Chevalier-Montrachet there. Stunning stuff.

Actually I wasn't very fond of my dinner at Atelier. Except that egg dish with the langoustones and the truffles was superb. But the rest of it, French cuisine standard issue. Unfortunately I wish the food at places like Curry in a Hurry was better then it is. It is this point, originally by India Girl, and then ratified by Sandra, which demonstrates where we go wrong everytime, or as Wilfird says, stuck in a rut; But it isn't that it's all gravy, it's that the Italian and Indian chefs whose food I eat do not cook carefully enough for it to be anything else but the same dish with a different sauce. I keep trying to make that point and everyone keeps wanting to talk about something else. Twenty painters draw a line but then Picasso draws a line. There is a level of cooking that revolves aroung great precision and care about detail that only exists in higher cuisines which means four star restaurants (NY Times.) It possibly exists in some dishes at the three star level. But it does not exist at the two star level. They just do not cook carefully enough. And if you haven't noticed, the highest rated Indian restaurant only gets two stars and this is the reason why. What I would like to see is an Indian chef deconstruct my tandoori and reformulate it in a way that I can see that it is connected to the original dish. Or maybe someone will take chicken breasts and coat them with paneer and then tandoor it for a moment or two just to cook it through, and then lightly sauce it. Anything but the same old dishes you see in every restaurant. Why can't Indian cuisine be something new and modern? You see, no matter what you say about expert spicing, you still run into this problem. You are talking about the old, and I am talking about the bold. Traditional cuisine is traditional cuisine, and modern cuisine is modern. I do not see a lot of modernity in Indian cuisine.

I think the more examples you guys give, the worse off your argument gets. Because a Biryani is exactly the type of dish I am not talking about. Maybe, and I say this naively but my suspicions are I am onto something, you should just admit that because Indian cuisine has been relegated to housholds, and it hasn't historically been highly practiced in restaurants, where the competition amongst chefs for people's money inspires them to create new dishes and techniques that will stand out, that it hasn't developed a level of technique that is in accordance with what I am describing. Let's suppose this is the case? You all seem to care about it but I don't see why? It is easy enough to say that had the socio-economic situation in India been different, the cuisine would have developed differently. But now that is changing with younger Indian chefs coming onto the scene. They don't want to be pigeonholed by having to exclusively use old fashion techniques and theories about how to prepare the cuisine. And while they will base their new cuisine on their forefathers, I believe that the Indian cuisine of tomorrow, will bear as much resemblance to tandoori chicken as modern French cuisine resembles dishes like Veal Orloff.

Well they are a great fruit, but not a very good dessert in a restaurant.

Dujac and I go way back . I have an '85 Clos St. Denis hanging around somewhere. I'll bring it out to dinner one night.

White peaches would be a white fruit.

I find many of the wines over the hill. Ponsot Clos de la Roche being a specific offender, but it seems like it's bottle to bottle there. But the Ponsot Griottes-Chambertin is almost perfect everytime I've had it. And the Dujac's I've had seem tired too. Both CdLR and Clos St. Denis. But the Rousseau Chambertin is not going to be drinking for at least another ten years, it is that powerful. But I've found his Clos de Beze to be terribly disappointing. So while the vintage can offer some stunning wines, it has lots of wines that appear past it too.

Nerissa - The problem with your statement is that it isn't that I don't believe that balance isn't achieved in Indian cuisine, I just don't believe that even when it is balanced perfectly it has the same validity (at the fancy restaurant level) as other cuisines have. I don't think the techniques they employ are as sophisticated as what other cuisines employ. Take for example the Crab Meat Dumpling that we were served at the Sweet n Tart Chinese banquet. It was constructed from egg white. Yet it formed a seal around slices of crab meat and when the dumpling was submerged in soup, it extracted broth from the crab and it filled the dumpling. Now that is a sophisticated technique. And the broth was delicate and smoky. It made for a terrific dish. Show me an equivelent to that in Indian cuisine? Spicing routines and the type of balance you are describing are not equivelents IMO. You see it has nothing to do with good Indian food. It has to do with modern cuisine. We keep talking past each other. I hav no qualms with Indian cuisine and I am sure the home cooking is as good as you say it is. But I am talking about fancy restaurant cuisine. And like Adam said, many cultures do not have such an animal. So it isn't that I prefer French cuisine, I prefer any cuisine that has created that level of culinary technique. French, Japanese, modern Spanish, they are better cuisines in my book because they are modern and innovative. But there are other cuisines where in spite of the fact that the food is delicious, they are in a time warp. Wilfrid - No I think my statement is true for everywhere in the U.S., and although it's better in London, in my experience it isn't by that much. Also as I told Nerissa, I can be describing Japanese cuisine, modern Spanish cuisine, even westernized Indian cuisine like Zaika or Tabla. And globalized dining is in reality the type of restaurant Michelin, or a local equivelent, would rate highly. Ron - Well let's see. A bowl of chicken noodle soup at Katz's Delicatessen might be delicious, but the double rich chicken stock they poach Foie gras in at Prune, which is almost directly across the street from Katz's, or which they use as a base for that great Creamed Chestnut dish they serve, is a higher form of cuisine. They just put more time and energy into it at Prune and it tastes like it. Gavin - I keep talking about high cuisine and you guys keep talking about daily cuisine. 1.75 billion Chinese will not change the definition of high cuisine. If we were talking about art, they will not change what art we display in museums. The standard will always be high art. And if Chinese artists are to be displayed, they will have the same burden as everyone else. Cuisine is the same. High cuisine will always be what goes on in temples of gastronomy, regardless of culture. Currently, the only high cuisines are French, Japanese and Spanish. Maybe there is a Chinese high cuisine but you have to go to Hong Kong. But you see flashes of it here on occassion. I don't know if there is a high Indian cuisine. So far nobody has conviced me. But many cuisines that are great to eat do not have high cuisines. Turkish and Morrocan just to name two. Italian is another great cuisine that fails at the high cuisine level.

You guys keep retreading old ground. I think I've been pretty clear in my assertions. 1. Indian food, in restaurants in the west, is almost always overcooked and overspiced 2. Even if it wasn't overcooked and overspiced, Indian cuisine, from what people on this thread have been saying, revolves around various spicing routines. I do not believe that western palates will ever accept that as a high form of cooking. And I am not saying they won't accept it as good cooking, or even delicious cooking. A high form of cooking. I think that cuisine forever hereafter, on a global basis, will be about complex tasting proteins and vegetables. This statement for example, even holds true for much of modern Spanish cuisine. Personally, I do not believe that chefs who extract the essence of corn from canned corn, will ever make a cuisine that is popular and accepted among high end diners other then being an intellectual curiosity. 3. Globalized dining will adopt what I would call more of a Westernized use of spices. Of course this will vary based on type of cuisine. And cuisines like Southwestern and Thai will always show more heat then other cuisines. But refined and overly hot do not go together in my opinion. Of course this does not mean that chefs will not assertively spice things. Just go to Union Pacific and you will see Rocco spice things more assertively then other chefs in town. But it always stays this side of too highly spiced which for all intensive purposes means the dish still revolves around the way the protein tastes, and not how well he has sauced it. These last two are just predictions. But I don't have much problem making them. And if I'm wrong, so be it. I do not have a lot invested in this theory other then to say that while Diwan is a good place to eat, it is also for the most part uninteresting. And The Bread Bar was a good place to eat, but had something interesting about it. And it isn't that every new place or new style is interesting. I ate at La Broche the other night and that is space age Spanish cuisine, most uninteresting as far as I'm concerned. So to me, when I say "interesting," I mean, captured my imagination. Stone - But this point, helps me make mine. Wine collecting is an unsual hobby. It's not for every person. But cuisine is supposed to be for every person. Let me see if I can illustrate this point better. I can drink wine for two reasons. I can approach it with my collectors hat on where the purpose of my drinking it is to differentiate between vineyard sites and how producers vinify their wines. But I can take the gourmand approach and drink for the purpose of having wine with my meal. Personally, I am much more interested in the latter then I am in the former. Not that I don't keep myself apprised about the former. But my main interest in wine is as part of the meal, not as a stand alone (as an aside, this is why I do not post very much on the wine boards anymore as most people there are more interested in the former.) So while I'm very happy to say that the wine I'm drinking is a great expression of X vineyard, I don't get carried away with it. Distinguishing those sites is not the purpose of my meal. It is only relevant if it enhances the proteins and vegetables I am eating. You see it's really the same approach as I am bringing to spicing routines. I'm all for the most complex spicing routines in the world. And I'm all for the most complex wines. But I do not want my meal to revolve around either of those things. I want those things to enhance my meal. Of course, there are wines that are so good and so immediate that they overtake the cuisine. But I do not believe I will ever find a spicing routine, or anyone who is expert enough to move me that way. Maybe I am wrong, and that is what certain people here are talking about and I haven't experienced it. But the only way to make me a believer is to bring me somewhere that does it. This line of argument started out with Fat Guy asserting that Diwan's spicing is a good example. Most people seem to disagree with that though. In fact, there has been very little agreement as to where to experience that ither then "India," a rather large and blurry answer. Miss J - Sory about my misuse of the word garvy. It was just an easy one. But if it mkakes you feel any better, in certain places in the U.S. they call Italian sty;e tomato sauce red gravy.

If you are asking whether I believe that Western diners would categorize twenty five lamb dishes that all revolved around a gravy as "the same," yes I do believe that. I believe that Western diners would not find a variation in the spicing routine to be a sufficient difference. Go to Brussels and get yourself a pot of mussels. They have fifteen different ways to spice the broth. Westerners think of that as [the same dish[/i/ spiced fifteen different ways. That's because our cuisine revolves around proteins and not spices. Adam - I think that is a good point. Why don't you name some and see if it differs, and how, from restaurant cooking in that country.

Actually I think it was four of us. And to be accurate, it was just one meal at The Bread Bar we were describing. But Suvir's statement about comparisons being "odious" is amusing in light of the title of his post; Whose Indian Food Really Stands Out? Unless I am mistaken, the inference has to be that "Stands Out" means other Indian restaurants. Unless Suvir meant to say that the food at Diwan stands out from Katz's Delicatessen or Dim Sum GoGo or McDonald's etc.?

R.G. - If you follow Mogsob's very excellent list you can't go wrong. The only thing I'd add is a place where you can get a good choucroute. Your seven year old might like a hot dog while in Paris. The place I like best is l'Alsaco in the 10th arr. Don't have the address handy.

Did he send you a PM about it? This type of statement has about as much meaning as my father saying that soup flanken is as good as bolitto misto. How do we know your friend from Goa isn't culturally biased?

Soba - I just don't believe this will ever be true about western dining. Complex saucing will never take the place of the underlying ingredients having the maximum complexity. This is why in India Girl's list of lamb dishes, the likely western response is they all will taste the same. Whether you want to portray that position as ignorant or not, doesn't really matter. As long as Indian dining revolves around gravys, I believe that is what people are going to conclude. Tony - I absolutely believe you that the Indian food, and the rest of the food in Asia, is delicious when you are there. But from what I see, the examples people point to makes it seem like the restaurants just cook a better version of home cooking. I am looking for a cuisine that is too difficult for home chefs to prepare. That's the big line in the sand here. Nobody is disputing that if you go to a major city in Asia, beginning at Beirut and ending in Seoul, that you won't find an indiginous cuisine in every place that is delicious. But is it a fancy version of home cooking, or have chefs in fancy restaurants created a cuisine that is only practiced in restaurants? Because when I talk about spices and how they will be applied, I am not talking about home cooking. I am talking about a true restaurant cuisine that is not practiced in homes. In reality, very few countries have something that meets this description.

Soba - I guess you are not hearing me. I believe, and this is merely speculation on my part, that complex spicing in the way you describe it will never catch on in the west. I believe it is something indiginous to the subcontinent and will always be viewed as "ethnic cuisine." It has nothing to do with it tasting good or being successful or not. It only has to do with how the upper middle class expresses themselves though cuisine. I think in the west, and I believe that this is the concept that is taking the globe by storm, people want to taste the complexity of the proteins. People do not want to eat lamb in a complex curry sauce. They want to eat complex lamb in a curry sauce that has just enough complexity to enhance the lamb. It is the difference between the Tabla approach, and the Diwan approach. Again, this is just my prediction but, I believe that the Diwan approach to tandoori lamb chops will befall the same fate as Tournedos Rossini. An old fashioned dish that is served in "classic" restaurants. But not where "anybody" goes to eat anymore. And maybe it will take another generation for it to happen, but it will. It happens to every cuisine where an upper middle class has disposable income and decides they want to use it in restaurants. Torakris - Japanese cuisine is not looked at in the manner you describe. I believe that every high end diner who follows the contemporary dining scene would admit that Japanese restaurants deliver cuisine is the highest possible standard.

I don't remember seeing Jonathan's post originally though I might have. But as I have stated on other threads, my comments are limited to current cuisine in Italian restaurants. If in their homes they are secretly making the greatest cuisine in the world, well that's terrific. But the Italian restaurant scene is pretty bad if you ask me, unless you want what is the equivalent of home cooked food. That's fine but......

Well you are pointing to one restaurant. I can probably point to more then a hundred. Actually I bought a cookbook, think it was a Madhur Jaffrey, and the recipe for Raan stuck out like a sore thimb as something I wanted to eat. I've had it somewhere, can't remember where. Not very good and obviosuly not a good version. But it's the same thing as above. You have mentioned one dish. I can list the recipes for fifteen or twenty different ways the French make a leg of lamb. And I'm not trying to compare them. But you can't escape the dichotomyof that stastistic. I actually haven't shut any doors. I would love to eat a great Indian meal, either here or there. Actually I had a terrific Pakistani feast prepared for me in Cairo by the parents of an employee of mine at their home. So it's not like I don't get it. But I think you are sort of missing my point which I possibly did a better job of articulating above. The French have fifty different ways to coat a rack of lamb. The diversity in those fifty methods is pretty amazing. But I do not buy the proffer that there can be fifty spicing routines to do the same in Indian cuisine. And I know I am exaggerating when I say fifty, but you know what I mean. When I say overspicing, I mean what the food emphasizes. And when I say inferior, I just mean not as good as. I don't mean it to say the cuisine is bad. The problem seems to be that if I said that I wanted the best quality lamb chops spiced in an Indian manner, you would call that French food. But if you spiced them in a way that I know Indian restaurants to do it, which is more highly spiced, I might find that delicious, but an inferior approach because in my experience the spicing drowns out the taste of the lamb. Someone is going to have to show me that both can be done. But I will be honest with you and say that based on what I've seen, it can't be done. For the same reason real opera singers perform at Covent Garden instead of the people who sing opera in their bathtubs. Professionals versus amateurs.

Bill - Ate at La Broche in Miami last night. They served basil pasta which was made out of basil juice and gelatin. Not bad because it wasn't starchy . Yes I gave up pasta 12 years ago. Don't ask. I can still smell when it's good though.

That's the one. Great book. I don't like the Carol Field books as much as other people do.

Well let me throw out a provocative theory. Is it possible that Indian cuisine is really home cooking, and they can't make it fancy restaurant cooking no matter what they do? And I am trying to draw the distinction here between home and restaurant cooking which I think are two different animals. And maybe my criticism of the cuisine rests on the fact that it doesn't really get beyond home cooking no matter what you do.?

The Splendid Table is terrific. But an excellent book that is overlooked is Tuscan Women. Forgot who wrote it. But some great recipes in there.

Hey, Claude is here too. Cool. Thanks again for the terrific bottle at out lunch last month.

The "best food is available in private homes" declaration is soon to be as forceful a pronouncement as the "my box is full of PM's that agree with me." Comparing restaurant cuisine, available to everyone who can afford it, and cuisine served in private homes, truly elitest and revolving around class, are really the apples and oranges here. If there is an Indian cuisine that is sooooooo gooooood that isn't available to anyone, someone should make it available because they could make a bloody fortune. I'd be very happy to support it.