Steve Plotnicki

What is the origin of the recipe? Is it one of those olde New York jobs or did they bring it over from England?

I think this is a false statement. Untrained chefs cannot produce brilliant cuisine just because of raw ingredients. Culinary technique is more then just presentation. It's about balance and harmony and manipulating textures to make things both luxurious and to intensify their natural flavors. If you don't appreciate that type of approach, that's one thing. But you can't deny what it is just because you don't appreciate it. I find white truffles interesting once. I mean that literally. When I go to the Piemonte for some truffle eating, after one day of it I've had enough. Maybe two days. Otherwise I like them just fine. Why are they outre with the Slow Food crowd these days?

I think that was a fair post. But I think you have slightly overstated the greatness of Barolo and Barbaresco. Both great, but they fall short of the best Burgundy and Bordeaux in my book. To me they are more the equivelent of Rhone wines, but I think they are bigger and better then Rhone wines are. That is a function of Rhone wines being for the most part, 20 year wines, and Barolo being long term agers. But you're right about every day drinking wines. Outside of the Loire, France doesn't do a very good job with everyday wines. But then again, the country is focused on the luxury wine business because it is such a valuable business for them.

Bill - Are you really John Whiting? I'm just joking. You have made all political arguments. Stop talking about money and tell me about interesting food. All you gave me was a bunch of hyperbole about Slow Food chefs blah, blah, blah. Name dishes that are interesting and why they are interesting? Place them in the great continuum of cooking that has been going on for 100 years in France and Italy. As for black truffles, I don't know, when I was in Richeranches last year, those truffles sure seemed local. As for "real French food," all you have done is say that home-style cooking is real food. Again, that's a political argument. The best cooking in France is not going on in places that serve home-style cooking. It's going on where highly trained chefs practice a certain type of culinary technique. Unfortunately in Italy the best food is going on in home style restaurants where the same level of culinary technique as France isn't expended. And I think that it is more then just my take on it. I think any objective analysis of the techniques they apply will find my analysis credible. Now you might not like all that fancy technique. Just like people don't like the fancy technique that makes the ballet and opera what they are. But to deny it has any value is not a realistic statement. And when you call it "emperors new clothes," you begin to lose credibility IMHO. French cuisine has an entire level of culinary technique that is missing from Italian cuisine. That Italian cuisine hasn't created an equivelent, is in my opinion, a failing on it's part. Hopefully that is being corrected now. And if you don't think that is a fair and honest assessment of the culinary scene there, I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree about it. Craig - I was just joking. I don't drink enough Italian wine outside of Barolo to really be able to engage in the debate properly. But you can't be serious about Italy matching French wine for cabernet and merlot. Yes there are some good wines in Italy but they are not in the same league as the first growths. And I mean on a regular basis. I'm not saying it never happens.

Just your words. That's enough. Fresser is the Yiddish word for people with hearty appetites. Let's ratchet this baby up a bit. Do you not agree that French wine is superior to Italian wine?

Bill - Sorry I missed your post. Flipot is one of the places I was looking at trying when I was there in October. But I'm going back for a few days this October and maybe I will try it.

Hey maybe I'm wrong. I'd be quite happy for you to prove me wrong because it means that there are more interesting places to eat in. Problem is, as many times as I ask you to put forth some evidence that interesting cooking does exist in Italy (outide of Vedat's list) you have offered zippo. Otherwise you could question anything you want. It's your reputation on the line when you do it. The big fressers who lurk this site can parse the good from the bad opinions about this stuff anyway they want. I'm quite happy for them to consider me wrong as long as I get to choose what I eat for dinner .

You Italophiles personalize these things so. Why is it an attack? It's just an analysis of the cuisine. Why about that would be an attack? Why isn't it just a fair analysis? And why is my analysis wrong? Where is the evidence to disprove it?

Okay I'm going to give you an eye test. I said the following; "And why do you say that Italian cuisine is on the way up? And I'm not saying that it isn't. Just what evidence is there that it is? and then you said; I think you are the only one saying it is not on the way up. HELLOOOOO I just said I'm not saying that. But I am holding it in reserve .

I have to say that it was great stuff for packaged proscuitto. Better then the packaged stuff they have in NYC. And why do you say that Italian cuisine is on the way up? And I'm not saying that it isn't. Just what evidence is there that it is?

Only the Italophiles disagree. To them, packaged prosciuttto that you can buy in the rest stop on the autoroute is "interesting." Can you point to any independant literature that believes that Italian cuisine is cutting edge? Or how about you cite some cutting edge dishes from the restaurants that you like to tout in the Slow Food Guide? It seems to me that Vedat had a fair rendition of what modern and "interesting" Italian food is. You didn't seem to be able to muster too much of an argument against his position. Well I'm standing behind him peering over his shoulder. The funny thing about Bill's rant is that it is a typical distortion of reality based on a personal preferrence. It invokes the Italians don't care that they don't speak English because their country runs less efficiently, and they are happy about that standard. And it tries to imply that it is a correct standard. Yes, the streets on the Swiss side of Chiaso are clean and beautiful and on the Italian side it's a little grungy and seedy because our GNP isn't so good BUT WE LIKE IT THAT WAY DAMMIT. Bill - You are barking up the wrong tree with Ducasse. If you read my musings on the French boards, I find Ducasse to be a bunch of hype. And I point to his attempted misapropriation of Italian cuisine in Monte Carlo as evidence of his lack of creativity. You can't make Italian food "better" by talking about French food. You have to demonstrate that Italian cuisine is interesting and modern and not stuck in a 30 year old time warp.

Bravo. After all of that, it's still simplistic home cooking from chefs without much imagination.

Actually, just to go off topic for a minute, the Garlic Creamed Spinach at Joe's Stone Crabs is pretty good. But okay Fat Guy, I'm ready to do a creamed spinach taste off.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat. All the empirical evidence does is show why they like to eat it. The standard is always tied to humans and how they function.

That gives me the opportunity to whip out textbook Plotnickiism on you. Only people who do not taste well would believe this. Because the entire food industry revolves around the inexact measurement of personal taste and the ability of good tasters to communicate what they taste to the rest of the dining community. Empirical evidence never enters the fray. Now you might use empirical evidence to show that tomatoes that ripen to a residual sugar level of x% are preferred by diners in 3 star restaurants, but you could never calculate what the right residual sugar percentage is in a vaccum. You need expert tasters decideing what the levels should be, and then a preponderance of customers agreeing. Because of that, empirical evidence is only a way to analyze what humans like already, not something to manipulate what they will like and dislike.

No, dining is about better opinions remember? There is no absolute truth. It's like evaluating art, movies, etc. It's all about opinions. Unless you are prepared to admit there is an absolute truth to it and things either taste good or they don't? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

I've been trying to teach you but you're resisiting.

You know on thinking about it further, I realized that this point is what is wrong with this thread. In fact, it's the underlying theme of where we go wrong on all of these debates. The fact of the matter is that when eating, better opinions are worth a million times more then esoteric scientific facts. That's because eating is not a science, it is a craft like cooking is. It starts out with the premise that there is nothing that is perfect, but there are more and less perfect expressions of things. That is the standard we need to impose when discussing food. How blue food dye makes us think red food tastes doesn't have much of a concequence to a discussion about dining.

No. Good yes, even great. Interesting no. Experimental food is interesting. Unusual techniques or unusual ingredients when applied to traditional dishes can be interesting too. But a better prosciutto isn't interesting. It's just better. In fact, you lessen greatness when you try and misppropriate language. Bistecca Fiorentina is a glorious thing to eat. But to call it interesting is an inaccurate description of the dish.

Well you see you keep shifting the pea like this. It isn't a matter of enjoyment, it's a matter of the way the wine tastes to an uncompromised palate. Compromised palates might, or might not enjoy it. And anything can cause the compromise including glass size. As for Dot.com millionaires, don't you wish you were one? Some of my friends who became Dot.com millionaires have unbelieveable cellars.

I had '75 Petrus last week. Chinon doesn't hold a candle to it.

Yes, and their conclusions are oh so valuable, especially when they are based on examples of things that have about a million in one chance of happening in the context of the dining experience. But you know what, tonight when I am at Daniel, prior to my tasting the Petrus I am going to ask them for a glass of chocolate milk.

Sorry Suvir. Your question seemed to have more load then that. You should contact Rocco DiSpirito as he uses spices more then any other chef I know. In fact, I can't think of another chef that really uses spices in a big way. I guess there are people like Norman Van Aiken who have integrated spicing routines like Adobo and other latino spicing routines into French technique. Lety me see if I can think of others for you.

No Wilfrid you are wrong. This is a food board and all statements are made within the context of the dining experience. To misappropriate those statements into the context of a science experiment, or to test the exactness of the language in the context of linguistics, is where we always go wrong (well not me, but the scientists and the pedants .)

For the fifty millionth time, I agree with this. But this example has nothing to do with the dining experience which as a practical matter means it is invalid. Dining is about enabling us to to taste it better. Not to hamper our ability to be able to do that in any way. When you go out to dinner, they don't serve you straight vinegar to numb your senses before giving you something with a delicate flavor to eat. In fact, they give you something to clean your palate with when that is at risk. That is the reason we are stuck in the mud. All of the examples you raised have nothing to do with dining. They are science experiements. The only valid answers to Eric's original post, are examples of how presentation adds to [the dining experience. It has nothing to do with how we would taste things if we spent two weeks at the Nasa training center being sleep deprived.