slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I think he's just trying to say that the drinks that are seemingly very different are, in fact, related; they are variations on a theme.
But they aren't! The Margarita and the Manhattan are not variations on the same theme.
You know more than he does about cocktails and see that he has glossed over important differences. But I think you are also reading a lot more into his words than you should be (and his words from a video - not the article, when he presumably had more time to choose his words carefully).When writers in other sections of the paper write about things that I know about, they get a lot of details wrong. It's natural to ask "why didn't they just ask so-and-so!?" Sadly, that isn't how most media works.
We still call them on it every day in these forums.
Yes, I agree that the written piece is better than the video... although I wouldn't necessarily say it rises to the level of "good." The video suffers considerably compared to his other videos where he speaks quasi-extemporaneously because he doesn't have any meaningful background in this area, and because he didn't do the video with someone who does. So, what we have instead is a situation similar to a bartender from London shooting a video about East North Carolina barbecue with... well, Michael Lomonoco.
-
I've watched the video and I think slkinsey was a little harsh in his original assessment.Next, he says that he looked around at old recipes for cocktails, and discovered that "80% or so of cocktails are pretty much made from that same formula." Really? 80% of cocktails are Sours?
Is it 30%, 90%? Who knows and who cares? How would you ever determine such a thing (80% of drinks ordered this year? Ordered ever? 80% of the drinks listed in some book?) He's clearly making the point that many drinks have sweet and sour components.
If you don't know, then don't say. He was clearly implying "the majority." But, again, this goes back to my main point, which is: don't "speak from authority" on a subject in which you are materially in the dark.
I'm not seeing a lot of differences here," says Bittman. Really?! Not seeing a lot of differences between a Margarita and a Manhattan? Isn't that like saying you don't see a lot of differences between pancakes and biscuits?It should be clear that he is saying there isn't much different in the method of alcohol, sweet, and sour. He clearly isn't saying that there isn't much difference between a Margarita and a Manhattan.
Pancakes and biscuits both contain flour, milk, fat and baking powder. That's my point. In fact, pancakes and biscuits are more closely related than a Margarita and a Manhattan. And yet, I'm guessing we'd be saying it was kind of dumb if a guy did a show saying "I looked around at a bunch of bread-like recipes and noticed that about 80% of them are made with flour, milk, fat and baking powder" then did a show on pancakes and then, at the conclusion, made biscuits saying, "I'm not seeing a lot of differences here." How about this? How about, there is a big difference between simple syrup and vermouth? How about, there's an even bigger difference between lime juice and bitters?! To be fair, if his point was "cocktails are made out of liquor and other stuff" then it's all spot on! But that's hardly helpful.
-
Bittman sayd, "Why not treat the margarita like a dish of pasta with tomatoes, assuming a few given ingredients but varying them according to your taste?"
Why not, indeed? But one might hope that (1) Bittman would suggest that someone actually make a fairly orthodox pasta sauce or two before thinking outside the box; (2) he would provide readers with some understanding of how good pasta sauces work and why they are typically structured the way they are; and (3) he wouldn't use as his demonstration example a pasta sauce consisting of a cup of ground tomato, 1/4 clove of garlic and a tablespoon of red pepper.
Here is his "master recipe" for cocktails: "For me, most cocktails look like this: A stiff pour of alcohol, say a quarter cup, over ice; very little sweetener, a teaspoon or at the most two; a tablespoon or more of lime juice." That scales to 2 ounces of spirit, 1/6 - 1/3 ounce of sweet and 1/2 ounce or more of lime juice. This is hardly an example of good mixology.
Then, he has the audacity to write that the idea of making your "cocktails from scratch, ignoring the names and acknowledging your preferences" is one that "clearly comes from the perspective of cook, not bartender." Like there's a single cocktailian bartender out there who doesn't know how to adjust Margarita or Sidecar ratios in dozens of ways to accommodate ingredients as well as individual tastes.
ETA: He also misses the boat on a golden opportunity to talk about balance in a sour cocktail. How to figure your way towards making a cocktail that is neither sour nor sweet, but both and neither.
-
The large size tin is exactly what is traditionally used in a glass-and-metal Boston shaker. What you're doing is replacing the glass part with a cheater tin. I'm not sure if 15 ounces would be big enough. I prefer the 18 ounce ones.
-
Lots of places. Try here: http://www.barsupplies.com/cocktail-shaker...ns-c-33_34.html
What you want is a 16 or 18 ounce weighted tin and a 28 or 30 ounce weighted tin. You buy the two pieces separately.
-
I didn't want this to turn into a bitter bout of Bittman bashing! Overall, I like his work. I just think this represented him at his very worst, primarily because he doesn't seem to have much background in cocktails.
Unfortunately, I don't think that cocktails are a particularly good fit for his extreme reductive approach. We're not talking about reducing a restaurant recipe with 22 ingredients and 13 individual steps into something equally delicious, if less refined, that contains many of the same ideas and can be accomplished with 5 ingredients and 3 steps.
Ultimately, making cocktails is very simple once you have a recipe or even a basic ratio. You want to make a Margarita? Fine. It's got three ingredients: tequila, Cointreau and fresh lime juice. Let's say you're using 2 ounces of tequila. There are a few ways you can make it. An ounce each of lime juice and Cointreau will give you a bracing tart drink. A half-ounce of each will give you a more spirit-centric drink. 3/4 ounce of each is in the middle somewhere. Want something that focuses more on the liqueur? Use 1.5 ounces of tequila, 1 ounce of Cointreau and a half ounce of lime. Or go further in that direction with 1.5 ounces each of tequila and Cointreau and 3/4 ounce of lime. Now we have more or less outlined all the usual variations of the Margarita.
This would then be an opportunity for a reductive approach to say: "See, they're all just ratios. 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 or 3:2:1 or 2:2:1 and so on. All you need to do is think about how you like your 'New Orleans Sours' and you can make a million of them using these ratios. Switch up the spirit and the sour as much as you like. Cognac and lemon? You got yourself a Sidecar. Citrus vodka, lime and a splash of cranberry? A Cosmopolitan. Spend the summer sipping your way through a bottle of Cointreau and trying different ratios and different spirits. Then, think about this: there are lotws of other liqueurs you can use instead of Cointreau? There's..."
It's all very simple, really. Much easier than, say, making your own pizza from scratch. But, of course, you need to have at least a basic understanding of cocktails to explain this to someone -- and that's apparently something Mark Bittman doesn't have. Step #2 would have been going to someone else who has some expertise in cocktails. Instead we got Lomonaco and his sidekick Brad. And, unfortunately, since he didn't have the background to apply his reductive approach in the right direction (ratios), he ended up just dumbing down what is already pretty simple.
-
I also confess that I don't see how you could possibly have spend >80 dollars on a "snack" of vegetables, pizza and wine unless you bought an expensive bottle of wine.
Let's construct an expensive snack at Franny's. I'll choose the big-ticket items...
Sugar Snap Peas with Sheep’s Milk Ricotta, Mint and Lemon for $11
Red Rice Salad with Asparagus, Peas and Provolone Dolce for $13
Pizza with Clams, Chilies and Parsley for $17
Glass of 2006 Sono Montenodoli Canaiuolo Toscana (organic, biodynamic, sustainable) for $14
That's a pretty hefty "snack." Most people would call that "dinner." I don't know that I could eat that much by myself.
The subtotal is $55. Sales tax brings it to $59.55. Tip brings it to around $71. This is not nothing, but it falls significantly short of $80 for a heavy-meal-sized "snack" in which I chose the most expensive items.
-
I once stopped in at Franny's for a snack of some vegetable dishes, pizza and wine and ended up spending more than 80 dollars. That was a pretty expensive snack.
Let's reframe this...
I once stopped by Momofuku Ssäm Bar for a snack of some offal dishes, a clay pot and wine and ended up spending more than 80 dollars. That was a pretty expensive snack.
So?
-
I don't quite understand if the Mud Puddle books are ready for sale now, or not.
-
As far as reducing cocktails to their components, showing how they fit together in families and giving would-be home mixologists a firm understanding of the backbones of cocktailery in an easy-to-read book. It's been done by Gary Regan.
Or even more apropos, Mr David A. Embury, whose classic book, "The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks" is now available from Mud Puddle Books.
The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks (Link to their online store.)
I am inclined to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen:
"I've read David A. Embury. David A. Embury is a favorite of mine. Mr. Bittman, you're no David A. Embury."
Well... Embury has such a unique and enigmatic take on cocktails, I'm not sure I'd recommend it as a beginner book.
-
As far as reducing cocktails to their components, showing how they fit together in families and giving would-be home mixologists a firm understanding of the backbones of cocktailery in an easy-to-read book. It's been done by Gary Regan.
-
The secret of the Boston shaker is to go all-metal. Then you can just squeeze the shaker to break the seal. As a bonus, it results in a colder drink. As an additional bonus, it makes a cook "snap!" sound when you break the seal. As a third bonus, you're riding the equipment curve instead of following it.
-
IMO, there is nothing wrong with shaking (or stirring) every cocktail, especially if one is approaching the craft as a beginner. I can't think of any cocktail that is ruined by shaking, and only very few (egg white drinks come to mind) are impossible to make via stirring.
-
The article, at least, has more correct information (although I'd hesitate to call a Daiquiri a "Gimlet with rum").
-
Heh. No, of course you don't count. We've already established that you're an outlier.
-
1. Bridge Kitchenware is moving from Manhattan to New Jersey.
At this point, they very likely do most of their business on the internet or telephone. Very little walk-in business to justify a Manhattan rent.
So... still curious: Who has been back to NJ for a repeat food trip?
-
I should begin by saying that I really like Mark Bittman's work. His cookbooks are excellent, I admire his recent writings on the ecological, ethical and moral aspects of the foods we eat, and I like the way he often breaks down otherwise complex restaurant foods into simple iterations. And although I've never met him, I like the personality he projects in his television and video appearances.
That said, his recent NY Times article, and especially the accompanying video, do not represent his best work.
Any time a video on cocktails starts out with the line "I'm not a big cocktail drinker, but..." you're likely to be in for some rough sledding. Next he notices that almost all of the cocktails he makes consists of booze, something sweet and something sour. In other words, some kind of Sour. Okay, so far so good. There is fertile ground there.
Next, he says that he looked around at old recipes for cocktails, and discovered that "80% or so of cocktails are pretty much made from that same formula." Really? 80% of cocktails are Sours?
Often in these videos Bittman spends some time with a well-known chef where he explores some of his ideas. This video continues the trend. So he goes to Porterhouse Restaurant where he chats with chef Michael Lomonaco and his "barman" Brad (no last name given). Really?! In a city that has telegenic and well-spoken mixologists such as Julie Reiner, Audrey Saunders, Eben Klemm, Eben Freeman, Gary Regan (who has written persuasively on the "families" of cocktails) or, dare I suggest, Dale DeGroff -- Michael Lomonaco was his go-to guy for discussing cocktails?! Lomonaco starts things off by explaining that what they're doing is taking raw alcohol and combining it with things to "make it more palatable."
Brad Noname starts off with a "classic" Margarita, which he compounds with tequila, lime and 1:1 simple syrup (which Lomonaco says should be boiled). They discuss the necessity of using quality ingredients, and then Lomonaco says that simple syrup helps to make the spirit more palatable again. Why anyone would need to make $50/bottle Patron tequila "more palatable" is a mystery to me. Brad then shakes this mixture in a small shaker and dumps the whole thing, ice and all, into a rocks glass. No Cointreau in evidence.
Bittman then asks, "what if I do the same thing with vodka, do you call it something different?" "A Collins," replies Brad. Really? A Collins with no fizz water? And vodka is the classic base spirit that defines the drink? Bittman says, "a Collins is vodka, lime and sugar." Really? Then Brad chimes in with the brilliant observation that "if you do that with gin, it's a Gimlet." Really?! That's a lot of misinformation packed into a small amount of time, garnished with poor technique.
Getting into brown spirits, Brad "proves Bittman's theory" (which was about Sours, you may recall) with the example of the Manhattan. Apparently, the vermouth is the sweet component and... er... bitters stands in for the sour component. "I'm not seeing a lot of differences here," says Bittman. Really?! Not seeing a lot of differences between a Margarita and a Manhattan? Isn't that like saying you don't see a lot of differences between pancakes and biscuits?
It ends with a self-pat on the back, saying: "I have this theory. I go do research. It seems like it's correct. I come here and talk to the experts. I look like a genius."
It's too bad, because I think his demystifying, reductive approach could work well with some real background knowledge and a talk with someone who would actually be appropriate for such a video. I just don't understand going to Lomonaco to talk about cocktails. He got the video and article about no-knead bread spot on, but then again, he was in an area in which he had some background knowledge, and he talked to the right guy. I wonder how that would have turned out had he never baked a loaf of bread, and done the bread baking video with Dale DeGroff.
-
Wow. That's sad. It was one of my favorite stores in the City. Haven't been there forever, since I've got cookware up the wazoo. But I'll have to go back before they move.
-
If you have a food item in a rigid container and reduce the pressure inside the container, the air will be "sucked out" of the food item. Things like watermelon and cucumber are full of air, so they are especially good for this.
If you have liquid in the rigid container as well as the food item, when you reduce the pressure you can see the air coming out of the food item in the form of bubbles.
When you release the pressure, the food item "reinflates." If you have liquid in the container with the food item, the liquid will be "sucked in" to the areas formerly occupied by air.
Needless to say, the efficacy of this technique will depend greatly on the porosity and other characteristics of the food item. Dense items, such as meats, probably don't benefit all that much from this technique -- although there is some benefit.
This technique only works with a rigid container. "Marinating" a food item in a vacuum bag is only useful in that it greatly reduces the amount of liquid you have to use, but it works otherwise like traditional marination.
-
SLKinsey - I simmer the pea pods in stock all the time, but are you saying that you then pureed the pods as well? That's a cool idea.
Yea. Well, I wouldn't call it a "purée." Pea pods are pretty fibrous, so the best you can hope for is to thoroughly shred them in the blender and liberate as much Spring goodness and green peaness as possible. Then you strain through a fine sieve to hold back all the fibrous shreds. It added quite a bit of flavor, a little thickness and a very nice pale green color to the stock.
-
Anyone seen it at retail around NYC?
-
My favorite Irish whiskey cocktail is Dave Wondrich's Weeski.:
2 oz : Irish whiskey
1 oz : Lillet blonde
1 tsp : Coinreau
2 dashes orange bitters
Stir/strain/lemon twist.
This drink really brings out the peachy qualities of Irish whiskey, which I sometimes highlight even further with an additional dash of peach bitters.
-
I made pea risotto the other night. Used vialone nano rice. The broth was made with the backs of a few chickens. Then, after that, I cooked the pea pods in the mild chicken broth. That was pureed in the blender and strained through a fine sieve to make a "pea broth" that I used in making the risotto. Nice way to get all the pea flavor out of English shell peas.
-
The only other suggestion I'd have other than béchamel (which I always use) is to make sure you use a high quality, dense ricotta. If you can't get something that comes out of the container in crumbles rather than blobs, drain it overnight. Then measure the drained ricotta for your recips. It could be that your ricotta disappears because it's too watery -- in other words, you're adding too much water and not enough cheese.
Bittman on Cocktails
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
This is more of a historical piece than a "how to make cocktails" piece, of course. And it rambles a bit. And I can't figure out whether Lu is in the studio or in another studio communicating by voice only. I'd say it's a good, but not great piece. Still, it's a lot better than Bittman's video.
What makes the NPR piece so much better is that the producers clearly thought something like: "New Orleans just made the Sazerac the official cocktail of the city. Let's do a piece on it. Okay... We should get a bartender on the show to tell us about it and walk us through making it. Probably ought to be one from New Orleans. Lu Brow is one the top cocktailian bartenders in New Orleans. Let's get her." I think that Chris McMillan might have been a slightly better choice, simply because of his pleasant loquacity. But it's hard to argue with picking Lu, and I'm happy they didn't ask Michael Lomonoco.