Steve Plotnicki

I have been reading the account of South Kensington and I am wondering if people are speaking about the same neighborhood I was walking in last month. The shops are quite posh, maybe moreso then they were in years past. And the people who are walking around are as posh as ever, and the flats listed at the estate agents are even dearer then they used to be. What has changed significantly is the commercial bit of the Old Brompton Road west of the tube station. That sshops on that strip seemed to have dropped in class a few notches from years past, closure of Hillaire adding to that state. But aside from that two block stretch, the neighborhood seems to be oozing money to me.

Robert S. - I have a question for you. Why is it that you believe that the best ingredients need the simplest preparation? Why do you believe that the Italian way is better just because there is less intervention? It's as if you are saying that lightly frying recently netted calamari tastes better because the preparation is simple. Well if it's a matter of ingredients, why can't a complex preparation using the same ingredients deliver the same flavor but improve the texture and presentation at the same time, and maybe even intensify the flavor as well? You can take the same exact calamari and improve the batter over your basically Napolese batter by doing everything from changing the type of flour you use (like rice flour, chickpea flour etc.) or add a complex spicing regimen to the batter, or you can make a series of sauces to go with it that come from terroir that is just as complex as where the calamari comes from. Why isn't that "better" then just plain fried calamari? And even if it isn't, what makes you say simple is better? While I agree about how wonderful the Italian terroi is, the French tradition of terroir is just as strong as the Italian tradition. The entire haute cuisine movement was based on that terroir as a starting point and doing everything from intensifying those flavors to improving the texture and appearance. Granted today food distribution in France has been commercialized to a far greater extent then it has been in Italy, so there has been greater diminution there. But philosophically, I don't see the big difference at the terroir level if you are eating the best stuff each country has to offer. Tony - We are all interested in your knowledge of how Italian cuisine is currently influencing modern gastronomy. If you had something germane to add to the thread I am sure it would spark lots of discussion. Or maybe you don't and that's why you needed to make the conversation personal?

Nobody has said anything of the sort. You are the one who has equated relevant with better. That doesn't have to be the case and a number of us have said so. We've explained what relevant means ten times already and you are still arguing that we have said it is the equivelant of better. It keeps coming back to the same issue. Since you have no evidence to argue your position based on facts (as they relate to this question as asked,) you keep trying to change the context of the question so the answer can come out the way you want it to come out. And when that is pointed out to you your response is a number of personal insults directed against me. Do you really need to do that? Wouldn't it be easier to say, no Steve you're wrong, here are a few examples of how Italian cuisine is relevant to modern gastronomy. Not Robert S.'s examples, your examples. Because I am certain that in no way do you understand how Italian cuisine has impacted on the restaurants he mentions, or whether the examples he mentions would qualify as modern gastronomy. So let's hear it. If you are such an expert on this topic that you need to characterize my position as "neurotic," or imply that I have difficulty coping, bare all and tell us what you know.

It has nothing to do with the site, it only has to do with this question. Those restaurants are at the center of what this question is about. If you haven't eaten at any of them, how can you argue with the opinion of those who have? This is nonsense. It's the equivelant of saying, "let's forget the original question, and ask our own question about how it could be relevant." HELLOOOOOO. If the issue really boils down to, why are the Michelin starred restaurants in Italy not very influential on the international dining scene (and you have at least a half a dozen educated and experience responses that agree with that in this thread,) you can't change the parameters because you want the answer to come out differently. That's really what your griping is all about. You like Italian food and you want it to fair better then it has in this thread. You don't really care what is relevant to the question, you only care what is relevant to you. And it gets worse because despite all of your protestation you can't even come up with any examples of relevancy as it relates to modern gastronomy. Why don't you just do that? Instead of torturing the definitions of words like "relevant" and phrases like "modern gastronomy," go give some examples. But I suspect the reason you haven't don't so already is because you don't have any.

A majority of the people don't know what we are talking about because they haven't eaten in any of the restaurants in question. Just tell me, have you eaten in any Italian restaurants that would be relevant to this discussion? And if so, which one have you eaten in? How about highly rated French restaurants of the Pierre Gagnaire/Arpege type. Have you eaten in any of them? Can you do a comparison for us of those two types of restaurants? Robert - That's a religion not a meal. I'm with you on the philosophy. It's just that isn't the only way to eat.

A good Proseco if one must drink white bubbly wine. At least keep it local.

Robert S. - Well if something exciting is going on nobody must know about it because they sure ain't talking about it. As Robert B. mentioned in an earlier post, there was a time when modern Italian cuisine was hot. Probably between 1985 and 1992 there was much talk and much interest about a number of different restaurants. But for the last 10 years, nada. But Schonfeld, you're an Italophile. Why don't you visit a bunch f those babies and tell us hop they are?

Blech. There are none I can think of. Like mixing oil and water. Truffles are funky smelling. They taste of the earth. You need a wine that tastes of the earth as well. That's why old barolo or barbaresco is the right way to go. Where are you eating these truffles? At a restaurant, your house? Can you bring wine?

Tony - Well if that is the case, why do you bother participating in threads like these in the first place? As far as I can see, you have not eaten at a single restauarant in either France or Italy that would qualify as being meaningful to this conversation. And if you have, it seems not to have been in a long while. Yet you want to argue every inference of every word of the original question when you really don't know what we are talking about. And to make it worse, when I point it out to you, you have to make remarks about my person. Here is a link to a list of the Top restaurants of 2000 according to Gambero Rosso. After you have eaten in any of them, come back and we can have an inteligent discussion as to why none of those chefs/restaurants seem to have any impact on the international food scene. Until then, I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about and I think your opinion on this topic is useless. Gambero Rosso Robert - That is the original question. It's pretty simple when it comes down to it. Restaurants that practice "modern gastronomy" do not seem to be relying on Italian technique. It has nothing to do with good food or bad food. Just the food that those who practice modern gastronomy are interested in, i.e., find relevant.

I just want to point out that the people on this thread who disagree with my definition of "modern gastronomy, goumet" and relevant" do not travel to France or Italy to eat at restaurants serving food that would qualify as "modern gastronomy served to gourmets and which would be relevant to a discussion about the topic." Yet they keep arguing about the definitions. When you cut to the chase, their entire purpose seems to be to deny others the use of the word "better" because they want what they like to eat to be considered "the best." It's so tiring. Class warfare through pasta and cassoulet. It's the same faulty argument my son uses when he tells me that Hershey's cocoa is "better" than the cocoa from Maison du Chocolate. Robert S. - Modern gastronomy should be defined as "Food where new and interesting technique is applied and such application of technique spurs interest in dining at said restaurant or conversation about their technique."

Marcus is right. The pricepoint for Bordeaux revolves around ageability. In the $12-$18 pricepoint, the best you will generally be able to do is 3-5 years (of course there will be exceptions.) I don't keep track of the Bordeuax market in detail but I think you need to get into the $40-$60 category for that type of ageworthiness, i.e., the same pricepoint as Cote Roties that can age for 10-15 years. And a lighter style Barolo like Scavino which is a 10-15 year wine will also be at that pricepoint. Starting to see a pattern?

The original question framed "modern gastronomy" as something that "gourmets' practice. Now how are you defining who gourmets are? Are they people who eat spaghetti and meatballs from a tin? Pizza Express? Is it someone who goes down to his local tratorria and orders mushroom risotto? Eats at Locanda Locatelli? Who exactly do you think goumets are?

Again, all you are trying to do is to change the definition of relevant as framed in this question. It specifically means *people who are interested in the cooking style, and people who like to eat at THOSE TYPES OF PLACES.* So there is no woe to betide us of because not every restaurant will be like that one. And people who don't go eat in those places still won't have to. And they still won't have to talk about them either. I wonder if they are relevant to this conversation?

Not white, red. Barolo is the classic.

Kermit Lynch "Adventures on the Wine Trail" is an interesting read.

Actually I can add to my last post in a way that is "relevant" to this discussion. Part of the reason I found myself disappointed when I went to the Piedmont is that I thought the cooking was going to be a higher expression of cuisine then it turned out to be. For years I had read so much about it that when I got there it was sort of a letdown. Yes there were meals that were delicious (I had some terrific meals at Da Cesare) but going to Gener Neuv or Giardin de Felicin were major disappointments. The other thing that I didn't like about the region is that I found that the restaurants pretty much served similar menus. Nobody had lifted Piemontese cuisine out of its environment and restated it in a different way. Take a fonduta which is really nothing more then eggs, cream and curds of cheese I believe that are whipped into a creamy sauce/dip. It has a very distinct cheesy taste to it and it also has a grainy texture. But why doesn't somebody make a fondutta di __________ using a different cheese from outside the region? Or Savona is just a little more then an hours dive down to the coast. But my best recollection is that fish is virtually non-existent on menus. JD - Okay let's take the ravioli in the haute cuisine restaurants in the Alpes-Maritime. They are usually stuffed with some luxury ingredient like foie gras or lobster. And they are usually served in an elegant or luxurious broth. You don't get daube stuffed ravioli at Jacques Chibois. And as for the skill to make handmade pasta, there must be 50,000+ Nonas in the Piemonte who make hand rolled pasta in their homes with their eyes closed that is as good, or nearly as good as a professionals. Just like there are 50,000 Nanas in Britain who can make a good shepherd's pie. And there are 50,000 Grand-Meres in Provence who can make a daube that is mijote, and 50,000 Bubbys in Jerusalem who can make a great cholent where the meat is really gedempt. Of the 200,000 women I just mentioned, I bet you not 2 of them can make a dish like Robuchon's Cauliflower Flan with Caviar or any other haute cuisine dish that we can name. Even the Grand-Meres couldn't do it. It takes more then mere practice to learn the skill of it, it takes intense studying to learn the art of it.

You are correct when you say that about 15 years ago the Italians made a run at appearing contemporary. Same time as Gualtiero Marchesi had a run as a famous chef. And I can remember how hard it was to reserve at Robuchon. But you know what was almost as hard, La Scaletta in Milan. Foodies from everywhere were trying to get in to eat that blueberry risotto. I remember we couldn't get in for dinner and we went for lunch one winter on a sunny Saturday afternoon and we were the only people in the place. End of the month I will suffer the truffle crop so I can give my report. As for wine, I've already secured tastings with both Conternos which should be fun. But I know what the food tastes like there and I doubt I will find many surprises. How could I? Nothing ever changes there.

Tony - Well of course if you make the standard "relevant to people's everyday lives," then Italian cuisine is much more relevant then French cuisine. But that's like saying the cartoons in the newpaper are more relevant then the Mona Lisa because you read the newspaper everyday and you only go to a museum once a year. And if you use that standard, McDonald's is more relevant then Italian cuisine because more people at it then anything else. Why Italian cuisine is relevant is because along with bistro food, it is one of the two most successful examples of home cooking. Most restaurant food we usually eat is just a glorified version of home cooking. How about Jewish cuisine like cholent and salt beef and kishke? Or British cuisine including the infamous pies and puddings? Alsatian and German saurkraut dishes and stews. Even when you get to the Middle East the food they serve everywhere is just fancy home cooking. You want kofte kebab? No need to go to Maroush. Your local butcher will whack up the lamb, parsley and spices with that thick bladed knife of his in that back and forth motion they use. I can't think of another cuisine aside from French that is built around a restaurant culture other then Japan's where they have raised the practice of slicing fish into an artform. But when you pit Italian against French on the bistro/tratorria level, it's easy to choose Italian. The French are a bunch of fatmongers. Most of their homestyle dishes depend on rendering fat so they are heavy and rich. Italian cuisine is much lighter then French food. It might be loaded with carbohydrates but fat does not play a huge role in the meal. How is that, relevant enough for you?

Robert - An excellent answer that unfortunately begs the question of why there aren't two prongs to Italian cuisine like there are in France. A traditional prong and a creative prong. And the truth of the matter is that there is a creative prong like Robert B. pointed out using Vissani etc. as an example. So the real question comes down to why therir creative prong has so little impact on the worldwide food scene. And the question becomes more puzzling because their traditional cuisine is so delicious.

Oh, it's 155 euros for caviar. I see. Now it's a bargain.

But I just described that as well. But if you want more detail, it is as an entire tier of restaurant cooking which is generally on a simpler level (simpler meaning the level of technique applied as opposed to French cuisine.) That really comes down to salads, pastas and roasted meats that generally create their own gravy or jus without the use of thickeners or binding agents or pre-made stocks. How else might it be relevant other then this description?

115 euros for langoustines. Order one for everybody at the table.

Again with the arguing about the definition of relevance. I think that we can all agree that Italian food, in addition to being delicious, is a very relevant cuisine. The cooking techniques used in preparing Italian food crop uo in almost every aspect of our culinary lives. And considering that there is a pizza place on almost every block of the world (that is in the U.S.,) and on many blocks in other places, one can easily say that if you use a standard of commercially successful, both in and out of the home, then Italian cuisine isn't only relevant, it is the most relevant cuisine in the world. But what any of that has to do with the definition of relevance used in this question, I don't know. When we say relevance we mean food that people are talking about *because the preparations are different and unusual.* That is the standard. Being incredibly delicious without the flourishes doesn't result in the same amoung of verbiage being expended as things like Adria's potato foam. Now that's a topic we can get our arms around. And right now the Italian food scene hasn't spawned a chef in over ten years where "people" are talking about his interesting technique and intersting cuisine. So if we eliminate "delicious" as the equal of the word relevant, maybe you will understand how Fat Guy and I are using it. Robert - I am not either defending French cuisine, nor lambasting Italian cuisine for their contributions or lack of, to the ritual of fine dining. And I am not even saying that the world's most interesting or creative chef doesn't exist in Italy right now. But I don't think that is what Fat Guy's question is. He wants to know why we have so little interest in what goes on in Italy (foodwise.) And you yourself admit that nobody here has been to Vissani etc. in a while. Do you know why that is? Because they aren't relevant the way some other restaurants are. And I can offer no better evidence then your own phone call this summer to El Bull which basically said that you would drop everything you are doing and drive the 6 hours from your home on a moments notice. Is there any restaurant in Italy you would consider doing that with? Was there ever? I know there wera a number in France over the years.

Peter - I didn't say I didn't like it. I said it was overrated. I do happen to like it. I've been to the Piemonte twice, had 7-8 meals there, some very good and most mediocre. The main problem is that aside from the taste of the local terroir, which I can't replicate in my home, I can make everything else. And in fact I can make it almost as good, if not better in certain instances. What's to making polenta or a fondutta? Taillerin is just the ratio of eggs to flour. Roasted mushrooms? On both occassion that I went there I brought home a rather large truffle and invited guests to dinner at our home. And aside from the fact that the meat tasted of the U.S. and didn't have that distinct Italian flavor to it, what's the big deal? Robert B. - I don't care how modern the cooking is in Italy (not that I am agreeing that it is,) the question was why isn't it relevant. That boils down to chefs and hobbyist eaters talking about their cuisine. Just look at the thraed on L'Arnsbourg and tell me when someone started a thread like that about an Italian restaurant. Tony - Yes you did put it succinctly. But you have described a different relevance then the one Fat Guy was asking about.

Peter - Regardless of how one likes the food in the Piemonte (I think it is good but overrated,) it is so irrelevent to the world of cooks and other people who follow cuisine on that level that there wasn't even a proper cookbook written about the region until about 3 years ago. Even now after it has been written, fondutas aren't turning up on tables around the rest of the world like souffles are. Adam - It's not only Francocentric. Cooking from other places around the globe are relevent too and are influencing chefs. Thai cuisine, Japanese, South American to name a few. And Italian cooking influences these people too, but it's all the old tricks. Nothing new has come out of Italy in uite some time.