Steve Plotnicki

Bill Klapp - With all due respect. You must be a sweet guy and I am sure if we met we would drink some great Piemontese wine and have a good time together. But I asked you to show me an example of high Italian cuisine that isn't home style cooking and you ended up describing kreplach. I know you want it to be more then that. I know you would like a perfectly roasted onion that they pour some vinegar on to be considered world class culinary technique. But it's not. I am looking for the description of a high cuisine. Pasta that my grandmother can make is not high cuisine. I am looking for chefs that are more skilled then ones who make the same pasta dish that every other chef in the region makes. And if you do not see the difference between the dish you described and some of the haute cuisine classics, we are not going to be able to have a substantive discussion about cuisine. If you need me to explain why there is a difference between what you described, and what I am talking about, I would be glad to take the time to explain it to you either publicly or privately. But we are approaching this issue with two completely different sets of standards. And for any conversation to be fruitful we need to have a basic understanding of what the terms of the discussion are. Kreplach not being haute cuisine would be a good place to start that discussion. Suvir - I didn't raise this issue. Bill Klapp did. He ranted and raved, called me names indirectly, and he huffed and he puffed. I was just defending his allegations against me. Now you are describing it like I was the one pushing this agenda. I was not and it is wrong of you to act like I was. If he stops, I will gladly drop it because this issue has been the subject of an exhaustive debate (which I obviously won or else I wouldn't be under Bill's skin so badly.) And now that he raised the kreplach, it's like I won the Gold Medal at the State Fair. He should quit while he's ahead!

Sorry Craig I will stick with my comment. Bill has put up about a half dozen posts now and his focus is on me, and he has offered nothing about Italian food. And I have no problem with the conversation getting heated, even a bit personal. But it can't only be about my person. Shades of Bob Foster on the AOL board.

I didn't say that either. I said the best chefs do. They don't have to. But if they don't they have inferior skills to the ones who are able to Your posts are also overly personal. Talking about people's reading skills etc. It's in bad taste and it doesn't help your argument any. Certainly you have a way to defend Italian cuisine without attacking my person. That tactic might work with a jury or unsophisticated adversaries but not with connoiseurs of fine food and cuisine. And certainly not with me. Otherwise you still haven't offered any examples of interesting Italian food. Even though you keep threatening to. In fact, the staunch defenders of Italian cuisine never seem to be able to. Just remember, you can't prove Italian food is any good by talking about me. And the more you try and prove it that way, the more we all know you are just blowing a bunch of smoke.

How about lack of Pompiers?

Actually I like Italian food. And I happen to know lots about it. But I just won't be browbeaten by Italophiles into admitting it is more then it is. But if you show me an example of innovative Italian food that is succesful as modern cuisine, I'd be the first person to sign up for it. As for Italy being unclean, it's got a gritty edge to it that isn't present in other countries like France, Switzerland, Germany, Holland etc. When I was in Rome last (spring 2000), they had just cleaned it up for the Jubilee and the place looked beautiful. It should be like that all of the time. As for being disorganized, they need to hire some good efficiency experts there. As for Michelin stars, I am not saying it is a meaningless piece of info, it's just not determinitive by itself. Unless a place has two or more stars. That's a big statement. Read Ed Shoenfeld's Q & A. It's all in there. He said it. Not me.

I don't know. I will say what I said a long time ago. You are underestimating the ability of the people with the aptitude to do this. Do you not believe there is such a thing as taste memory, and that it can operate without visual clues?

Okay so what does this mean to the price of Roumier Bonnes Mares?

Why? Show me why I'm not right? Show me Italian cuisine that is more then choosing top quality ingredients and not screwing them up? Show me an Italian chef who creates a new flavor through his cuisine? I'm waiting.

But isn't that just a question of how far your connoiseurship extends? If you are trained to do it without any visual clues or other non-taste clues, why would a change in the environment make anything seem different?

You keep striking out Bill. I haven't said anything of the sort. What I have said (and I must have said it twenty times over various threads) is that Italian chefs have been a failure at creating a level of technique in their own cuisine that is the equivelent of haute cuisine. I also haven't said that it isn't changing for the better. I have just given a historical perspective for what has happened with their high cuisine (they didn't really have one) over the last 25 years. Go back and read the posts and call me when your done. Michelin awarding stars does not impress me. I've been to Ai Sorisso which I believe is one of the three star restaurants. To me, that's two stars at best and what they do there isn't interesting enough for me to want to go back. And there are loads of French restaurants with stars that are boring. In fact I am as harsh on the French as anyone else. I await your examples. It's always best to talk about food using real life dishes and situations. Vedat did that in his post about eating in Northen Italy. He convinced me that there is a there, there. You haven't convinced me about diddlysquat other then that your hyperbole should be left amidst the Barbaresco vineyards like a pile of must. Robert S. - An arguably true statement. For something to be a cuisine, chefs have to do more then lightly cook the ingredients in order to coax the natural juices out of them. My Tante Gussie could do that if she had a commercial kitchen and she could get her burners on a simmer setting.

Well you see you've distorted the thrust of that argument to prove the assertion wrong. The right way of saying it is; "I spend more money on food and wine than you so I have much more experience then you." Not to mention the time and energy I spend to keep up with changes etc. Unless you are saying that people who do it more don't have a better vantage point? Go ahead. I dare you. As always, this conversation comes down to a quarrel between people who do it, and people who don't do it, or don't really get it because they don't really do it.

But you keep removing Fat Guy's statement out of the context of the dining experience to make that point. In reality, in the context of the dining experience, very little can change. This problem exists because you guys can't imagine that people have the aptitude we are describing. That is Oraklet's point. For people who work in the arts and crafts, people with the type of aptitude we are describing are abundant because that's what makes their discipline tick in the first place. The only people who would ask for empirical evidence are those who can't get their arms around it in the same way. People who don't get it. Because if you got it, you certainly wouldn't be asking for empirical evidence. In fact you would be providing it because you are wired that way.

Italian food doesn't even rise to the level of cuisine. It's just cooking. I haven't said it's an end in itself. I said that better technique produces better cuisine. It's true for every culture and every style of cooking. Now there's a statement I'd like to see you refute. It just so happens that the French have an entire level of technique that the Italians can't seem to figure out how to create. And that's where it begins and ends. Saying that the technique doesn't matter is like saying that ballerinas being on their toes doesn't matter. It's a false statement. That is why one goes to the ballet in the first place. To say it doesn't matter is a telling statement about the speaker, in that it demonstrates that they don't understand what the ballet is about. And your statements about French cuisine are the same. You can't possibly understand haute cuisine and make the statements you are making.

But don't you see the inconsistancy in that statement? Main Entry: con·nois·seur Pronunciation: "kä-n&-'s&r also -'sur Function: noun Etymology: obsolete French (now connaisseur), from Old French connoisseor, from connoistre to know, from Latin cognoscere -- more at COGNITION Date: 1714 1 : EXPERT; especially : one who understands the details, technique, or principles of an art and is competent to act as a critical judge 2 : one who enjoys with discrimination and appreciation of subtleties - con·nois·seur·ship /-"ship/ noun The art of food and wine appreciation revolves around people who have the cognitive ability to determine what is good and what is not. All science ever does is explain why they feel that way about it. People who are connoiseurs have to go no further then to prove why their judgement is a valid opinion. Infallability is not the standard. You should stop asking people who are connoiseurs to demonstrate anything other then a valid opinion. I loved this post. It was some hellacious knife twisting.

Science subordinate to art? What a concept. I know we've won the battle when Adam is reduced to class warfare potshots.

I always view this debate as a control issue. The scientists are trying to rest conclusory statments away from the connoiseurs by switching the context of the debate to empirical evidence. But as Oraklet so deftly put it, the pursuit of food and wine is a pursuit among, and by, and for the benefit of, other connoiseurs. So I am afraid, that leaves science in this odd secondary position of explaining why the connoiseurs like what they like. Always a bridesmaid . Yes, I got a short dissertation on slingshots. I am trying to work out similar methodology to save fuel in my car.

Problem is, and this is the bit where the conversation goes circular, dining isn't something precise. So when the scientists try to bring specificty to it the conversation goes awry. Actually the dinner was great fun and the food and wines were phenomenol. But I learned all about space shots and how they save fuel when they launch satelites.

You mean like that?

Jay - You are making me slot in a meal for Zaika on my trip to London next month. My meal there last year fell well short of the finish line. But I'm going to go again based on your recommendation.

Sorry, I am not challenging his right at all. I welcome every word Tony has to say. Even if he decided to post drivel. But I am asking him why he bothers expending the energy writing about a pursuit that he claims doesn't interest him. Irish Cream - I'm putty in your hands.

Sorry Bux, I was speaking of the balance between spicing and proteins in French cuisine as opposed to how Indian cuisine approaches the concept of balance. Tony - I was saying that since you are not keen on "fused" cuisine, why do you comment on it? I would think that you would just ignore it and let the people who are interested in it waste their money looking for the perfect meal?

.And obviously even more difficult to understand if you are a scientist. Actually I had dinner last week with five people, all of them holding PHD's in physics. All serious wine collectors. They didn't seem to have this same trouble with these concepts. So I guess there is hope for Adam and the rest of the crew.

Because people like me are willing to pay for it to be done correctly. And on occassion it is done correctly. But since you aren't, why do you comment about it?

Because you want to listen to rock and roll and not the blues. And I'm not making any value judgements either because I would prefer to listen to Muddy Waters sing the blues rather then Mick Jagger. But, not if what you want to listen to is rock and roll. Which is to say they are many people out there who do not appreciate the blues. That's because the slightest mistake screws up the food. The last thing French chefs want is their food overspiced. Their cuisine is about properly balancing ingredients. The only French chef who I can think of who handled curry well is Alain Passard with his scallop in Thai green curry (I think that's it.) It was so mildly curried. But as you ate the dish, the intensity of the curry flavor kept growing and by the end of the dish it was in the forefront. The other chef with the famous curry dish is Bernard Pacaud at L'Ambroisie, which was not impressive when I ate it. But I have to add, the teaspoon of curry powder that I bought at Izrael in Paris and which I add to my pot of mussels and cream is delicious. Thank you.

What other opinions matter? Or I'll even broaden it for you. Whose receommendations matter?