slkinsey

This is an odd list, in my opinion. It lists potable bitters like Fernet Branca and Campari on the same list as non-potable bitters like Angostura, which doesn't make any sense to me.

It could be there as a flavor enhancer. It's also the case that acetic acid wrecks gluten, which has a variety of effects.

Right. This is the same point I have also been arguing. Your coq au vin example is an interesting one. But, to be clear, don't think Fat Guy and I are arguing the same point. I'm in your camp, suggesting that "Jewish food" consists essentially of kosher adaptations of the cuisine of the country in which Jews live(d). savethedeli, and to a certain extent Fat Guy, seem to be arguing that "Jewish food" exists as a distinct cuisine in the same way that, e.g., Italian, Indian and Chinese food exist as distinct cuisines. I do think it's possible that, once Ashkenazi Jews moved out of Eastern Europe to other parts of the world, bringing with them their Eastern European culinary traditions and retaining different "old world" dishes in their new homes than non-Jewish Eastern European immigrants, the Jewish adaptations of old world Eastern European dishes that were preserved by immigrant Jews came to be regarded by Jew and non-Jew alike as "Jewish food" rather than "Eastern European food" in the "new world."

While I agree with your general point about broad versus medium versus small strokes of the brush, I'm not so sure about some of your other conclusions. First, it's not clear to me that we necessarily think of, e.g., Umbriano cooking as being an entirely distinct "cuisine" from Marchegiano cooking. Rather, they are closely related culinary aesthetics that evolved certain distinct dishes and methods largely based on geographically-mediated differences having to do with availability of certain ingredients, etc. It's not like the cooking style changes drastically when one crosses the border from one region to another, and the reason is that the geography and availability of ingredients, etc. are the same on either side of the border. This is fundamentally different from the way Jewish cooking evolved in, e.g., Eastern European communities, where the availability of ingredients and cultural/culinary influences were the same, but the Jewish community did/didn't use certain ingredients, combinations and cooking techniques (for religious reasons). I'm not sure that makes the Jewish cooking in those communities a "cuisine" that is distinct from the non-Jewish cooking. Unless, of course, one reduces the brush to the level of narrowness that lets us say that the cooking on the North side of Napoli is a "cuisine" that is distinct from the cooking on the South side of Napoli. I also have to take some exception with your idea that "the average Jewish dish is probably more different from its East European ancestor than the average Italian regional dish is from the one the next region over." There is more difference between the regional dishes near the coast as opposed to in the mountains of the same Italian region than there is between the average Jewish dish and the cooking of its Eastern European region of origin. The food in Rome and the food in Perugia? Way more different. The reason is that the geography and ingredients are different (the reason Italian regional styles have so much more variation than, e.g., Eastern European regional styles that extend through a much larger area is that the geography and ingredients in Italy change much more drastically). To stick with the Italian example, we have carciofi alla Giudia ("Jewish style artichokes") from Rome. For sure this is a "Jewish dish." Heck, it's even in the name. But are artichokes fried in extra virgin olive oil -- and, for that matter, the cooking of Trastevere in general -- so different from all other Roman cooking that is belongs to a separate "cuisine"? No, not really. To make another example, are matzo balls so different from Grießnockerl that they represent an entirely distinct class of cooking, a different "cuisine"? Or is this difference more similar to the kind of variations one might find between one town and the next town down the river. I would suggest the latter (have a look at some Grießnockerl in broth here -- if I only showed you the picture, you'd think it was matzoh ball soup). Part of the question I'd ask is "can you eat a certain dish and tell it's 'Jewish' without being told that it is?" So, for example, can you eat a bowl of meat dumplings in broth and say "this is kreplach as opposed to any of a dozen or more other Eastern European meat dumplings in broth"? If not, I'd suggest that kreplach are simply "Eastern European kosher meat dumplings" and not part of a distinctively different cuisine on the merits of the food. If you want to argue that it's the cultural connection, and not any thing intrinsic about the food, that ties together "Jewish food," I'd go along with that. But, as I've been saying, this makes it very difficult to update or reinterpret these foods and still keep their "Jewishness" -- especially to those living outside the culture in which the dish evolved. Well, undoubtedly he said that with a lot of humor mixed in there. But with a great deal of truth as well, because of Tucker's cantorial background. A lot of the unabashed wailing (and I mean that in a good way) that cantors do is frequently a very good thing in singing opera, and something that more restrained singers don't do (though in truth I'd have thought it applied as much to singing Bel Canto as Puccini). What is know to Italian tenors as the "Italianate sob" is know to cantors as the "cantorial sob". Hmm. As an Italianate operatic tenor myself, I have to say that I both agree and disagree here. Cantors do often sing with what we in opera might call "slancio," but the singing method is often too tense to fill a large theater over an orchestra and extend through the full operatic tenor range without breaking down eventually. This may simply be a matter of technique and training, or may be a stylistic difference. I'd also argue that the "sob" is only appropriate in Italian opera in the verismo style (post 1890 or so), and certainly never in belcanto opera (roughly 1810 to 1840). Which style came first is hard to say. Likely they evolved in parallel, perhaps each influencing the other back and forth as vocal styles and techniques changed dramatically over the course of the 1800s. To bring it back to food, this is likely a similar situation to the way Jewish and non-Jewish foods evolved within a given culture, except that everyone cooks and eats while not everyone sings professionally, so I would expect a much greater level of commonality in cooking influences, styles, etc.

Back some years ago the legendary Italian tenor Franco Corelli, who was just coming the Metropolitan opera with great fanfare and consequently stealing the thunder of legendary (Jewish) American tenor, Richard Tucker, asked Tucker for his advice on how to sing Puccini. Tucker was said to have replied, "to sing it right, you have to be Jewish." But the link back in post #6 on this thread would seem to hint that it might not always be like this, in every situation. Tucker is considered one of the greatest operatic tenors of the 20th century in the Italian and French repertoire, and certainly Corelli's equal. And, for that matter, the tenor considered by many (including myself) to have been the greatest of the 20th century in the Italian and French repertoire was a Swede, Jussi Björling.

Back some years ago the legendary Italian tenor Franco Corelli, who was just coming the Metropolitan opera with great fanfare and consequently stealing the thunder of legendary (Jewish) American tenor, Richard Tucker, asked Tucker for his advice on how to sing Puccini. Tucker was said to have replied, "to sing it right, you have to be Jewish."

People would say it was a "New York" restaurant.

What I am suggesting is that the foods that were cooked/consumed by Jews in, e.g., Poland, Hungary, Russia, wherever, were usually not meaningfully different from foods cooked/consumed by non-Jews in those localities, except that the Jewish foods were changed to make them kosher. You seem to be suggesting that we can simply say, "lots of Jews eat hummus and consider it 'Jewish food,' therefore hummus is 'Jewish food.'" Kasha, to use one of your examples, is a food that is consumed by millions of people who are not Jewish. In fact, many if not most of the people who regularly ate kasha 100 years ago (sadly, this may still be true today) were actively antisemitic. How could that possibly make kasha "Jewish food"?! Now, chopped liver is a slightly different case. I could go along with the idea that chicken or beef liver and onions cooked in chicken fat then ground and mixed with chopped hard cooked eggs is "Jewish food." But it's also a fact that it's very similar to other, non-Jewish foods from Europe. This goes to one of your earlier queries as to "updating" and "reinterpreting" Jewish food. To what extent can chopped liver be changed before it is no longer "Jewish." The answer is that it can't be changed very much. The reason is because, if it changes too much, it just becomes like all the other myriad liver and other meat pates, mousses, spreads, etc. that are found throughout Europe. So, this makes it fairly difficult to update and reinterpret chopped liver and end up with something that is both meaningfully different and still seems like "Jewish food." The difference between Jewish cooking and your example of China/Italy and the noodle (assuming that pasta did come to Europe from China, which seems to not be true) is that pasta cookery had hundreds of years to develop and evolve on its own in Italy, where it was, for all intents and purposes, completely separated from the influence of China and Chinese cooking. Italian pasta cookery and Chinese noodle cookery have almost nothing in common. Jewish cooking, on the other hand, developed, evolved, was influenced by and largely derived from the prevailing culture in which Jews lived. If 90% of the Jews in the world had lived in Israel for the last 500 years and had developed a unique and distinctive cuisine there, that would be more like Chinese, Italian, Indian, etc. food. Chihiran, you might want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew As to your question about the Thai meal, I think most people in America would say that it's Kosher Thai food, and not "Jewish food," per se. This is a source of some confusion, and part of the discussion here. What's interesting is that matzo ball soup in which butter was used to make the matzo balls (which would make the soup non-kosher, assuming they are in chicken broth) would likely be considered "Jewish food" by many.

I would point out, however, that "kosher" doesn't necessarily equal "distinctly/uniquely Jewish cuisine." Take a kosher chicken and roast it with potatoes and carrots. You've got a meal that most any observant Jew would eat. However, is this "Jewish food"? Millions of non-Jews who regularly cook the same thing (with or without using a kosher chicken) say "no." This illustrates part of the point I was making... Fried or baked dough stuffed with potato (knishes), crepes (blintzes), buckwheat groats (kasha), meat-stuffed pasta (kreplach), potato-stuffed pasta (verenekes), all the Middle Eastern dishes (hummus, matbucha, harissa, etc.) and many of the ingredients (buckwheat, couscous) are hardly "Jewish" in any intrinsic way. Some of them are simply not Jewish (being either Arabic or ubiquitous in the culture of origin), and many of the others are not necessarily recognizable as "Jewish" unless one is told beforehand (are kreplach in broth distinguishable from tortellini in brodo?).

I agree with Steven's point upthread that the important thing tying Jewish food together is more of a shared cultural experience (and, historically, adherence to Jewish dietary rules) rather than a uniquely devloped and distinct cuisine. I'm curious if anyone can point to "Jewish" dishes that are don't have a direct analogue in the non-Jewish culture from which they sprang. Below are some commonly cited examples of Jewish food which come to mind, together with the non-Jewish example in parentheses: <blockquote>Chopped liver (countless non-Jewish liver and other meat pates) Gefilte fish (pike and other fish quenelles) Stuffed cabbage (not particularly Jewish in the "home culture") Matzo ball soup (semolina dumpling soup) Latkes (potato pancakes not uniquely Jewish) Cholent (countless non-Jewish long-simmered stews) Hummus (not particularly Jewish in the "home culture") Kibbeh (not particularly Jewish in the "home culture") Brisket (Jewish preparations don't seem particularly unique/distinctive) Flanken (Jewish preparations don't seem particularly unique/distinctive) Blintzes (crepes, crespelle, etc.) Kreplach (ravioli, tortellini, pelmeni, pierogi, vareniki, etc.) Kasha (not distinctively Jewish in the "home culture") Corned beef (salted beef is ubiquitous to most beef-eating cultures) Pastrami (similarly spiced meats -- sheep, pork, etc. -- ubiquitous in Romania) Kugel (all the various types have direct anologues in the "home culture" -- e.g., lasagne al forno, mac and cheese, etc.)</blockquote> Of these, I can see a good argument for pastrami in America growing into a uniquely and distinctively Jewish food, and some individual kugel recipes seem fairly distinctive (although, of course, a noodle or potato casserole is hardly unique). I'm just trying to think of Jewish foods that would seem foreign on the table of a non-Jew in the "home culture" where the Jewish dish originated. For example, we all think of matzo ball soup as being "Jewish" -- and yet, when I spent a summer in Salzburg, I was often fed a lunch of semolina dumplings, which have the same, slightly granular texture as matzo balls, in chicken broth. Can anyone make the case for foods/dishes that are uniquely and distinctively Jewish, to the extent that they could be changed/reinterpreted and still keep their "Jewish food-ness" to the extent that this has happened with, e.g., Italian or French dishes? I wonder if part of the reason we associate these (mostly Ashkenazi, for reasons Steven explained above) recipes with "Jewish food" in America is that religious Jews here tended to preserve their "old country" culinary traditions and other cultural identifiers far more than other immigrant cultures, which have tended to assimilate (and disseminate their culinary traditions) far more. This may be related to the fact that Jews have historically been separated from their "home cultures" to one degree or another, partly through their own choice and partly because of various persecutions and discriminations. So, to return back to an earlier example, whereas many of the German and Austrian immigrants may have given up their culinary tradition of semolina dumplings in chicken broth in favor of keeping the sausages and beer, Jewish immigrants kept their matzo ball soup and this dish became "Jewish food" to most Americans, rather than "the Jewish version of the same dish everyone in town is making -- which is most likely what it originally was." To follow-up on one of savethedeli's questions, this makes it hard to step out of the box and "reinterpret" too much without ending up with a dish that is more "reinterpreted Eastern European" than "reinterpreted Jewish." So, for example, what makes the Tabla soup Steven describes "Jewish" is the fact that matzoh is used in the dumplings. If he served the same dish in May with semolina dumplings, it suddenly wouldn't seem so "Jewish" anymore. To go even further back, to the main premise of this thread: given the somewhat narrow confines of what makes us think of many of these foods as "Jewish" in America, and given the fact that most of these foods come from Eastern European culinary traditions that are increasingly unpopular (for reasons Steven has outlined well) here, and especially given the fact that these dishes as we know them come from Eastern European culinary traditions of a hundred or more years ago (which makes them all the more out of touch with current American culinary trends and preferences) conbined with the fact that it's difficult to change these dishes too much without most people feeling like they have "lost their Jewishness" -- well, that equals less eating of "Jewish food" in America. In fact, even observant Jews who live in America are likely trending their culinary preparations and eating habits away from what most Americans would associate with "Jewish food" -- they're just doing so within the confines of Jewish dietary restrictions. So, really, when we ask "why aren't people eating as much Jewish food today?" we're really asking "why aren't people eating as much Jewish versions of heavy, 19th century Eastern European food today?"

Kashrut. I have yet to see a convincing argument that there is anything distinctively different about, e.g., traditional Ashkenazi cooking and traditional non-Jewish cooking of Eastern Europe other than the fact that the Ashkenazi cooking is kosher.

Would anyone eating that Robuchon dish think it was "reinterpreted Jewish cooking"? What's "Jewish" about it other than the pastrami? I got the impression the dish was more "New York-inspired" than "reinterpreted Jewish." I've had skate stuffed with pastrami and a mustard emulsion at Oceana. Is that "reinterpreted Jewish"?

Order some from these guys.

Haven't done much testing. I'll be bringing samples to my friends in Pegu, D&C and elsewhere to see what they think. No troubles using it or getting it to dissolve. It's not a small amount of effort, so it's hard to say whether it's worth it -- or, rather, to what extent it's worth it. I think I've detected increased silkyness in the cocktails I've made using gomme syrup, but am reluctant to say this is for sure true until I've done side-by-side testing.

I have made two batches of gomme syrup with gum arabic, according to Dave's instructions I posted above, one white sugar and one demerara sugar. I have yet to do any definitive s-de-by-side testing, but it's noticably thicker and more viscous compared to regular simple syrup with the same sweetening power -- so much so that it won't really flow through a speed pourer at room temperature.

I'm with Dave. I think it's possible for someone to be an extremely advanced home (or even professional) home cook and not be particularly skilled at pastry and baking.

I completely agree, but the variations created by dietary restrictions created a stye and taste all its own. Pastrami may have come from Turkish preservation and Romanian cured pork, but the brisket and navel stuff is a world apart. Why aren't there Jewish restaurants in NY, LA, Montreal, Chicago that serve the food from different regions you talk about? Why aren't there Jewish chefs who focus on reinterpreting kugels or kibbeh or rice pudding? There are. For example, there is a NYC family that owns two Italian restaurants specializing in the Jewish cooking of Rome: Tevere, a meat restaurant, and Va Bene, a dairy restaurant. Most likely there are several reasons there aren't lots of restaurants doing Jewish foods. First of all, it's not always the case that the Kosher food of a city or culture is so distinctly different that it would be worth having a restaurant dedicated to this cuisine. For example, despite the proud tradition of Roman Jewish cooking, it's not so distinct from regular Roman cooking that most Americans could tell the difference. So, more likely one is likely to find a few of the well known, unique dishes scattered around on Italian restaurant menus. A good example would be artichokes fanned out and deep fried in extra virgin olive oil, otherwise known as carciofi alla giudia. For this reason, as Nathan points out, the Jewish cooking is likely to be seen simply as part of that national cuisine. The second reason is that... well, once you can find something that would be identifiable as"distinctly Jewish" (and I would argue that kibbeh and rice pudding don't come close to passing this test) to most Americans... a lot of it is not terribly interesting. Why would anyone want to reinterpret a typical Ashkenazi kugel? How could it possibly be reinterpreted to much that anyone would pay money for it in a restaurant? Third, unless part of the "reinterpretation" includes sticking to the rules of kashrut, how much can many of these dishes evolve before they're not so "Jewish" anymore? How much could e.g., a noodle kugel be reinterpreted before most everyone would see it as being more of a variation on "mac & cheese"? How much can gefilte fish be reinterpreted before it becomes simply a fish quenelle? So, at some point one is left with the idea of doing, e.g., Eastern European peasant cooking that adheres to Jewish dietary laws. Meh. Not that interesting. And, more to the point, it's been done... for centuries. I would argue, by the way, that Jews do eat "Jewish food" -- or, rather, the ones who are observant do. And they eat the same kind of "Jewish food" that Jews have eaten over thousands of years, which is to say: more or less the local cooking tailored and changed a little to adhere to kashrut.

Yea, I touch on this in a related thread: As I say in the quote above, my experience is that there are plenty of things called "sauté" on both menus and inside kitchens that are neither tossed around the pan nor cooked over particularly high heat -- thus failing on any of the common definitions of "sauté." Again, I have no idea how "frying" came to be associated with a fairly deep layer of oil. This distinction is neither here nor there, of course, when it comes to actual cooking -- so long as all the cooks in the kitchen have a common understanding of what it means. But it becomes more important when discussing cookware design, and particularly the sauté pan, which is designed to facilitate the constantly moving ("jumped") cooking technique I describe above. Someone who purchases a sauté pan thinking it is optimized for some of the other techniques (mis)-labeled "sautéing" will find that the sauté pan is a poor fit.

It's a fact that very few (Western) home cooks do any real sautéing, which involves movinjg the food items around almost constantly. This is compounded by the fact that most home stoves are underpowered for this high heat cooking task, and brecause most home cooks put way more food in the pan than the burner can handle. It is also true that a lot of home cooks confuse the sautéing with frying. If the food is just sitting on the heat and not moving around, it is frying, not sautéing. So, for example, cnspriggs: What you want to do with onions isn't really sautéing. If you were to sauté onions, you'd move chunks of onion around and around in a hot pan until they were evenly browned on all sides. In order to get the deep, dark browning and Maillardization you want, the onions have to cook for a much longer time at a lower heat setting. Similarly, when paulraphael speaks of the difficulty in reaching in to a sauté to turn pieces of food, he is using a technique that is not sautéing. Sauté pans are designed with straight sides so that the cook can throw in the chunks of food and vigorously shake the pan back and forth on the burner grate, bouncing the food items off the straight walls of the pan back onto the cooking surface. Paul does have a point that some "frypans" are perfectly fine for sautéing tasks. This is because the sides are tall enough and the slope is steep enough that food items are unlikely to slide out when one shakes the pan (although this can still happen if you shake the pan too hard). Unfortunately, the "taller, steeper" design makes these pans less than optimal for frying. The whole point of a frypan design is to facilitate frying: cooking flat pieces of food in a small amount of hot fat, not moving them around much (usually) with the goal of getting a crispy surface. Low, sloped sides are useful for this because they offer easy access to a spatula for turning and, mostly, because they facilitate efficient evaporation of liquid (the sizzling sound is water coming out of the food and boiling on the surface of the pan) which produces a crisp surface. The "taller, steeper" frypans are not so great for the spatula access and evaporation, and are closer to what I might call a "slope-sided" or "curved sauté pan" than a "frypan." I have a classic frypan design from Mauviel -- the sides are quite short and widely flared. It's quite easy to shake food right out the back of the pan, and one must resort to the "flipping" technique. As Paul and Blether point out, however, there are plenty of things a sauté pan is useful for besides sautéing. They're great for doing little braises, for "shallow frying" (more accurately called "boiling in oil"), for making quick pasta sauces and finishing the pasta together in the pan with the sauce, etc. If you're someone who does some sautéing, but realistically not all that much, but who would like to benefit from the added functionality of a sauté pan, I very much recommend a curved sauteuse evasée -- called variously a curved sauteuse, saucière, sauteuse bombée, saucier, chef's pan, flared sauté pan, curved sauté pan (although these last two sometimes have shorter sides), etc. Both Falk and Bourgeat make excellent examples of this pan in stainless lined heavy copper.

I found this an interesting comment. Are you suggesting that Indian buttermilk is high in fat? If this is the case, I wonder if it is actually buttermilk. Real buttermilk is simply the liquid that is leftover after cream has been churned into butter. That's why it's called buttermilk. Since most of the milkfat goes to the butter, real buttermilk is quite low in fat (afaik, lower than lowfat milk). What one normally finds in American supermarkets isn't actually real buttermilk. Rather, it is lowfat milk that has been cultured with bacteria to mimic the tartness of real buttermilk. If anything, this "buttermilk" is just a very thin unflavored/unsweetened yogurt. Real buttermilk has a thin texture, whereas cultured "buttermilk" has a thick texture.

I have a few thoughts: What about doing a variation on the technique for tea smoked duck? Steam the duck for 1.5 hours, then smoke it with heavy smoke for 1/2 an hour, then deep fry (or pan fry) to crisp the skin. Or hot-smoke the duck at around 350 for 1 hour and then no smoke at around 300 for another hour and a half (could finish it in the oven). I wouldn't recommend a spice rub for the duck, but you could always paint the skin with a glaze -- usually mostly sweet (e.g., maple syrup, cane syrup, corn syrup, honey, etc.) with some salt (soy sauce is good for this) and some spices. Brush the glaze on the skin and air-dry. Repeat several times.

My how times and circumstances have changed now that the question "are you carrying?" can be interpreted to refer to bitters!

First I ask about what vermouth they have and how old the bottle might be, it it looks like that might be dicey. After that, I find that they tend to pay more attention to the vermouth situation. Then I'll say something like: Tanqueray Martini, [slowly] two to one, stirred with a twist. Tip in a dash or orange bitters if you've got 'em.

Tanqueray Malacca was produced according to a 1823 gin recipe, and the company stopped making it around 3 years ago. I would say that it had a much more emphatic herbal profile than other gins on the market, but wouldn't say that it had the sweetness I'd associate with a tom gin. If I were to approximate tom gin, I'd probably just add some simple to an already soft gin like Plymouth.

Pipe down, grandpa.