slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Actually, there are several mistakes here...
First, there are no yeasts or bacteria on grapes (or whatever) that are useful in a sourdough starter. Those yeasts and bacteria are evolved to live on grapes, not in the entirely different environment of a continually refreshed sourdough starter.
As for the flour, interestingly it turns out that they don't typically find sourdough microorganisms in the flour either... or in the air. The fact is that they don't really know where they come from. Some sourdough microorganisms have been isolated from the teeth of children, for example. Regardless of where you live or what is floating around in your kitchen, if you start with equal weights of flour/water and feed twice a day by removing 90% of the old starter "batter" and replacing it with fresh flour/water, you will develop a symbiotic association of wild yeast and lactobacilli adapted to living in an environment of continually refreshed flour and water -- otherwise known as a sourdough culture.
In terms of the local microorganisms "taking over" the culture over time... this can happen, but doesn't necessarily have to happen if the sourdough culture has a strong symbiosis and is cared for properly. Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence that many older cultures succesfully resist deliberate infection of competing microorganisms. There are many examples of people maintaining separate sourdough cultures in their homes (or laboratories) which retain their individual character over time.
If you already have a strong, consistent culture you are using and feeding regularly, you should be able to go right back at it. If you don't have one, I recommend purchasing one from Sourdoughs International or getting one from a friend.
-
What do you mean "re-establish the wild yeasts?" Are you doing a lot of sourdough baking? If so, do you start entirely from scratch every time, or do you maintain a starter?
-
FYI, from The Villager:
In July of 2001, the former lumber company space at 75 Ninth Ave. was being proposed for the New York version of Buddha Bar, a fashionable Parisian hangout. The Ninth Ave. Buddha Bar was intended to have a retractable roof and French doors along the 16th St. side; features that neighbors in the Robert Fulton Houses to the east feared would be noisy on summer nights. Conversion of the space began by the project was abandoned and the space has remained vacant. -
Suzanne, are you looking for the spelling of general names (e.g., "triple sec") or the spelling of brand names (e.g., "Cointreau")?
-
I think star ratings are useful as a shorthand way of describing a kind of restaurant in terms of the whole package. If one says, "I ate at Cafe Pierre the other day... it's a three star seafood place" people can immediately begin to form some idea about the style of cooking, the setting and the price.
-
Back to my question: Isn't this discussion irrelevant if there aren't any 3 star restaurants actually serving 4 star food?
We might not know because the NY Times system is flawed and most of the reviews don't explain the reason for the stars as Bruni did.
Didn't Bruni say Babbo has four-star food? So there's one.
Well... his review implied that Babbo might have four star food. Although I have been playing Devil's Advocate a bit to stir up the pot, I don't really think the food at Babbo is entirely in keeping with the current model for four star food.
Which NYC restaurants do YOU think are serving 4 star food without a 4 star rating?Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger.
And I'm sure there a quite a few more.
This may be where the disconnect lies. You are describing places that serve good food, but what is "four star" about their food? Look... I love Landmarc, really love it. But by no stretch of the imagination are they serving four star food. It's ridiculous to even suggest that "mussels or steak with your choice of 5 different sauces" and "sweetbreads with crunchy green beans" are in the same category as what comes out of the kitchen at ADNY.
-
It's an interesting question. I can't think of any.
-
I think this notion that the fourth star is for ambience approaches the issue from a questionable perspective. . . . On occasion, we might see a brilliant chef who pulls it together so as to offer four-star-worthy cuisine, but in a restaurant that doesn't have the corresponding wine, service, decor, etc. That restaurant needs to be given three stars because it doesn't offer the complete experience.
Exactly. The fourth star includes ambiance, among a whole host of other prerequisites. If four stars simply stood for "really good food" we'd have a lot more of them.
-
But it isn't only about the food. It never has been and never will be.
I think there is a valid point to be made that there is a qualitative difference between having the same dish in different surroundings. Part of the four star experience certainly has to do not only with the attractiveness of the space, but the sound level, how comfortable and spacious the settings are, the style and pace of service, the quality of the flatware and glassware, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that one would have an entirely different experience eating a tuna and fiddlehead dish in a crowded, noisy, less than optimally comfortable restaurant in 1 hour as opposed to having the same dish as part of a 5 course meal in a spacious, quiet, comfortable restaurant where the table is yours for the night, real linen on the table and in your lap, eating off of fine china, using silver flatware and sipping a wine the expert sommelier helped you match to your food out of a Riedel glass. Not only would the meal itself be a radically different experience, but perceptual and social psychology strongly suggest that your subjective perception of the exact same dish would be rather different as well.
-
I think fundamentally we do not have to change our notions of what a four-star restaurant should be. The current system, implemented by a reviewer with an open mind, can easily accommodate non-French four-star restaurants.
I wonder the extent to which this is true. This is to say, I wonder whether it is possible for a restaurant to be awarded four stars without buying significantly into the international neo-French restaurant model. One could argue that slow, meticulous, complex, super-duper-luxe cuisine is something particular to the international neo-French restaurant model (I say "neo-French" because I don't think this style refects the cooking of France the way Italian style reflects the cooking of Italy or Chinese style reflects the cooking of China, etc.). Indeed, it has been remarked by many that the Michelin-starred restaurants in Italy aren't serving particularly Italian food.
The French invented the restaurant, the French have maintained leadership in that area, and therefore they get the biggest vote in defining the genre. For the most part, all over the world, that's the model everybody aspires to, regardless of the specific cuisine being served.I was right with you on the first sentence. Couldn't disagree more with the second. There are significant features of the high neo-French model that are specifically not the model to which people in other countries aspire. I keep returning to Italy because that's what I know best, but I know enough to know that it's no less true in other cultures. In Italy, for example, the aesthetic by and large leans away from meticulous complexity towards natural simplicity.
-
As for the ingredient issue, I think it would be fair to say that for the cuisine Jean-George serves, the quality of the lamb is almost certainly of a higher quality than the lamb used to make Mario's famous mint love letters.
The ragu that sauces the mint love letters is made of merguez sausage, afaik. While it is likely true that the lamb in Jean-Georges' lamb dishes is likely better quality than the lamb in the sausage used by Babbo (not that "high quality lamb" is necessarily important or even desirable in the context of a sausage ragu), it does not necessarily follow that the lamb at Jean-Georges is higher quality than the lamb Babbo uses in its lamb chop dish.
And I love the mint love letters. Also, any lamb dish served at Jean-George almost certainly requires a higher level of cooking expertise and execution than Mario's famous lamb chops.Here is a lamb item from Babbo: grilled lamb chops "scottadita" with Jerusalem artichokes, shiitakes and cumin yogurt. Here is a lamb item from Jean-Georges: pistachio crusted lamb chop with spring vegetable risotto and pickled spring garlic. Both go for around the same price. Neither dish indicates to me a higher level of technical difficulty compared to the other with respect to the lamb. Indeed, one could argue that some of the "simpler" cooking techniques are actually more difficult. Hitting a perfect medium-rare on the grill is a hell of a lot more difficult than putting something in cryo and plopping it into a steam oven to cook sous-vide for 24 hours.
I still find it hard to believe that anyone would consider Jean-George to not be "better" than Babbo. I guess we'll agree to disagree.I'm not saying that I personally don't agree with you, nor am I saying that I don't agree with the utility of the star rating scale as we understand it. I am just pointing out the limitations of such a paradigm, and one notable limitation is that it is virtually impossible for any restaurant that does not substantially follow the neo-French international model to ever achieve a top rating. I am further pointing out that I don't think this makes neo-French food and restaurant style intrinsically better than Italian food and restaurant style -- only different. Indeed, I think Italian food and restaurant style which has been changed in such a way as to garner a top star rating under this model is made less good thereby. Similar things could be said of the cooking/restaurant style of other cultures.
-
On what basis would you say that Jean-Georges is better? Does the food taste better there? Is the decor and service intrinsically "better" or "better" according to a certain paradigm? What is the scale on which you are measuring them?
I am in no way attempting to denigrate Babbo. It is a terrific restaurant with usually excellent food and sometimes excellent service. It does what Batali wants it to do. But it is objectively not as good as Jean George so it has fewer stars.
Which restaurant do you believe has higher quality ingredients?I couldn't say. Babbo is certainly not using second-rate ingredients. I don't think you can differentiate these two restaurants on this basis.
Which restaurant consistently offers better service?They offer a different style of service. Some people will prefer Jean-George's more formal style, some won't. I have heard some complaints about the service at Babbo, but have never experienced anything there myself other than first-rate service, so I can't comment any further than that. It is worthy of note that here on eG the number of people who have been to Babbo is probably 100 times larger than the number who have been to Jean-Georges, and on average less experienced at higher-end dining.
Which restaurant is in a nicer setting?Total judgment call. Plenty of people don't like the setting at Jean-Georges. I will say, however, that Jean-Georges has a more "four star appropriate" setting. Whether it is "nicer" is a matter of taste.
Ever feel rushed at Babbo? Cramped at Babbo? At Jean-George?Never at either place.
To me, the answers to these questions are objective, not subjective and not in any way arbitrary.Nevertheless, they are entirely subjective. It's quite clear. Objective evaluations are those that can be settled with a ruler or some other instrument of measurement. Evaluations that require one to make judgments based on nebulous criteria are intrinsically subjective. For example, at a certain level the difference in quality of ingredients may very well be objective (age of the fish, etc.) at another level (both places are getting day-caught fish) it is entirely subjective.
I think one could further the argument that Babbo is actually a more "important" restaurant than Jean-Georges in terms of its influence, etc. I think it's important also to note that we agree on the most important points: 1. both restaurants are serving outstanding food at a very high level; and 2. the NYT star ratings are appropriate. We simply differ on what those star ratings indicate.
-
Babbo and JG are two totally different experiences, like night and day.
"Better" isn't applicable here.
Soba
Viewing The Godfather is a totally experience than viewing Gigli, like night and day.
"Better" isn't applicable here.
How silly does that sound.
It sounds like you're making a strawman argument using movies as an example. A better example, with respect to movies, might be:
Viewing "Casablanca" is a totally different experience than viewing "Ladri di biciclette" which is a totally different experience than viewing "Kumonosu jô."
"Better" isn't applicable here.
-
Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book.
On what basis is Jean-George not a "better" restaurant than Babbo?
I could understand you saying that you enjoy a Babbo type meal more than a Jean-George type meal but I don't see how you can say that Jean-George isn't a better restaurant than Babbo.
On what basis would you say that Jean-Georges is better? Does the food taste better there? Is the decor and service intrinsically "better" or "better" according to a certain paradigm? What is the scale on which you are measuring them? Why and in what way does this scale apply to other people?
I would say that Jean-George is "different" from Babbo, and is (deservedly) higher on a certain kind of quasi-arbitrary scale. But that does not equal "better" in an absolute sense. Part of what we have to understand is that this "better" idea many of us share is an entirely artificial distinction.
-
Moreover, while I'm hearing a lot of "Babbo has four star food in a three star environment" I am resoundingly unconvinced that Babbo serves four star food. Babbo serves outstanding food, but I think it is three star food through and through. Just as the four star ambience has an edge of luxury and formality to it, so does four star food. Babbo's cuisine is fundamentally rustic, without the refinement of the four star restaurants. Even from a kitchen-mechanics perspective, Babbo's food lacks the kind of effort and discipline that is reflected on a plate at ADNY, Per Se, Jean-Georges, Le Bernardin, or Daniel on a good day. Which is not to say Babbo would be better were it to go in that direction. I think Babbo is pretty much the peak logical expression of Batali's style of food. I love it but would never give it four stars.
I tend to agree with this, but I am mostly going on what Bruni seemed to imply in his review -- which did give the impression that he thought it was 4 star food (if perhaps not the pinnacle of four star food) in a three star environment.
Part of what has historically made food like Batali's seem more "three star" than "four star" has been the less composed presentation, etc. The kinds of refinements you are talking about strike me as things which are fundamentally part of the neo-French restaurant tradition. You won't, for example, find an Italian restaurant making sure that every matchstick of leek is exactly .05 mm wide and 2.3 cm long, nor will you find the dish plated in a carefully composed, quasi-architectural way. That's not the Italian aesthetic. I have heard Batali remark upon occasion things like: "you want the food to appear natural, as though it slid out of the pan onto your plate in a particularly felicitous way" and "the Italian aesthetic would enjoy the capriciousness of having the leek matchsticks in slightly different shapes and sizes." This doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of effort, discipline and refinement to me, but rather an aesthetic that is fundamentally at odds with the more tightly controlled neo-French model.
If stars are going to be awarded according to the strict neo-French model, then it is impossible for a restaurant operating under the Italian aesthetic to achieve four stars. When Bruni said this...
At present, five restaurants in New York City have four stars from The Times. All are French in pedigree or predilection, and that rightly prompts notice as well as debate, at least around the tables where restaurant lovers huddle and feast.Can the list be complete without Japanese restaurants, so wildly in vogue? Will it ever accommodate Italian restaurants, so many and beloved? Why not Babbo?
To the last question, there is a short, emblematic answer: the music.
...it led me to infer that he was indicating he might depart from the strict neo-French model as a basis for awarding stars. A reasonable conclusion from the text above is also that he found the food worthy of four stars.
-
One thing I think it's important to understand -- and the Times is somewhat guilty of perpetuating the wrong idea -- is that a rating is not fundamentally a measure of how "good" a restaurant is. Rather, it is an indication of the style the restaurant is aiming for and the extent to which it meets those goals. Is Jean-Georges a "better" restaurant than Babbo because it got four stars to Babbo's three? Not in my book. But the difference in the style and goals of the two restaurants is nicely indicated by the difference in ratings. The fact is that Babbo might not be a "better" restaurant if Batali made the changes necessary for a four star rating (indeed, it might be worse in some respects) -- but it would be a different restaurant.
Do I think this information is still relevant today? Sure. The Times has also changed some of its ideas about what constitutes how many stars as restaurant culture has changed.
-
I think the problem is not so much that the pasta sticks together while it is cooking (this problem is most effectively solved by using a larger volume of water). Rather, it seems that the uncooked pasta sticks to itself and then does not un-stick once it is dropped in the water. For this, the only truly effective solution I have found is to use a drier dough -- a "pasta drying rack" can help as well, simply because the strande of pasta are not in contact with one another when they are hanging on the rack.
Also, responding to the original post: I would recommend using zero percent semolina. I assume you're using a special pasta machine to knead and sheet the dough? You should be able to make a much dryer dough if you're using a machine, and sticking really shouldn't be an issue. Also, how are you cutting the sheets of dough and how are you preparing the cut dough for transportation to the customer's home? A sheet of dough ready to be cut shouldn't be sticking to itself.
-
Updated List:
Saturday, June 12th @ 2:00PM
Attendees
kurl
Jason Perlow & Rachel Perlow
slkinsey & bergerka
Blondie
SarahD
Pan
-
Drier pasta. That is the solution. Drier pasta and a dusting of rice flour.
-
D'oh! Hmmm... None of your suit jackets would look reasonable with slacks? This is usually, but not always, the case.
-
I'd suggest splitting the difference. I am pretty sure you won't stand out at work if you wear dress slacks, a (non-white) shirt that will look good both with and without a tie, and a jacket. Bring a tie with you in your bag. You can always take the jacket off at work, and you can put on the tie at the last minute if you decide to go with neck ornamentation for Bouley.
This gives you the ability go be comfortable at work, and also to blend in to pretty much any style of dress at Bouley (dress slacks, shirt/tie and jacket, if appropriately high quality, are almost as dressy as a full suit -- and yet the whole ensemble is made appreciably more casual by taking off the tie and unbuttoning the collar).
-
Again if you read carefully (as you suggested to me), then you will see I wrote "...IF another reviewer had a different opinion [about the music (either taste or "appropriateness"), then the "stars" would change]"
To which several of us have given you the very clear answer: "No, because Bruni quite lucidly explained that the three-star rating was not merely because of the type of music played, but for numerous factors, of which the loud music was emblematic."
If all (or nearly all) of those factors changed, then yes, Babbo might be a four-star restaurant. It would also not be the same place. Remember, it is not a bad thing to be rated three stars. Three stars, in the Times system, means "excellent." In this city of thousands of restaurant, there are only about 40 of these. It is rarefied territory.
This comment is so off the wall, I'm not sure where to begin. The music was emblematic of an ambiance problem that caused Babbo to fall into the three-star category. If you accept that, then here is a simple point ot digest: IF BRUNI HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE AMBIANCE - HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT FOUR STARS BASED ON THE FOOD.
Not necessarily. There is a difference between "had a problem with the ambiance" and "didn't feel that the ambiance was appropriate to a four-star restaurant." As oakapple suggests, Bruni found that there were several things that kept Babbo from earning four stars. These things seem to be largely not food-related, and I agree that a possible interpretation of Bruni's article is that Babbo is serving four star-worthy food. However, it is quite well established that there are factors other than simply the food itself that go into the rating. These factors all seemed to point in the direction of three stars rather than four and tipped the balance in that direction. So, yes, if the ambiance had been more appropriate for a four star restaurant, it is quite possible that Bruni would have awarded four stars. So what?
Whether or not Bruni liked the ambiance (which I assume is what you are getting at with "had a problem with") is immaterial. He might actually prefer the ambiance at Babbo over the ambiance at Daniel. However, in making his evaluation, he judged that the ambiance at Babbo was a distinctly "three star or lower" ambiance. To suggest that such evaluations are somehow inappropriate in making a rating is to turn the entire system on its head -- and this is not the thread for such a discussion.
-
Before I had a chance to see it, I had seen this morning's MUG On the Radar, which slashed the review as almost unreadable. I didn't find it so; I found it excellent writing.
For those who may be curious, the Manhattan User's Guide said:
Heavens to Murgatroid! Please don't let Mr. Bruni be this tone deaf to the way we eat now. Maybe it's first-time jitters, but the writing made our stomach do a special jig, and that's not a good thing.I agree with you, buy the way, in disagreeing with the MUG. I thought it was very well written.
-
I think the reasoning behind Babbo losing a star because of music could be the most ludicrous I've ever heard - hard rock or not.
Babbo didn't lose a star. It was always three stars.
I have commented elsewhere on the star system as it relates to the quality of the food:
The assumption behind [awarding a one star rating] is that the food is at least within the range of "one star quality." There are plenty of unstarred places making food in the one star range that will not earn a star primarily due to reasons not having to do with the food (decor, location, service, etc.). Similarly, one can understand that there are places that are perhaps making what one would judge "very good one star food" who will be bumped up to two stars based on decor, service, etc. . . . In my view, it goes a little something like this:
Things like service, decor, etc. will figure most prominently in those "judgment call" areas.
My chart doesn't include four stars, but you can imagine it over there on the right.
What I gathered from Bruni's review is that Babbo is producing food that falls in the overlap area between three and four stars -- arguably four-star calibre food -- but that the other related elements such as the noise level, the pace and tenor of service and the closeness of the tables combined to make a three-star rating more appropriate.
Sourdough Starter - Hows, Whys, Whats
in Pastry & Baking
Posted
No, I'm not a microbiologist... but I do know some people who are, and I have corresponded with a few on sourdough.
Anyway, as to the origins of sourdough microorganisms, here is what Michael Gänzle (not only a microbiologist, but a sourdough researcher) had to say in some correspondence that was posted in rec.food.sourdough several years ago:
Lines 278-294 are from Gänzle. Also from the same source we have:
Lines 339-341 are Gänzle.
And again:
Lines 360-362 are Gänzle.
As for Reinhart's text... I love his stuff and agree that he is a "a prize-winning cookbook author, widely regarded as an expert in this particular field." But, when we speak of "this particular field" we speak of baking, not microbiology. There are dozens of books out there by highly respected bakers with bad information about sourdough in them. I have, for example, read that the acid produced in a sourdough fermentation strengthens the gluten, when in fact the opposite is true.
Anyway, speaking of Saccharomyces exiguus... there can be many strains of S. exiguus living in different environments. Just because some of them live on the surface of a grape does not mean that they will be able to survive in the radically different environment of a continually refreshed sourdough. A well-fed sourdough starter is like a cruel little evolution machine, and any microorganisms not already adapted to those conditions will not survive long. It is possible (and, indeed, necessary as a continually refreshed sourdough culture is not found in nature) that certain microorganisms will live in a similar-enough environment such that they are able to adapt and survive. But that does not describe the skin of a grape.
Besides, it's not as thought S. exiguus is the only, or even most common sourdough microorganism. The most common yeast, as it turns out, is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, followed by Candida milleri, C. humilis, S. exiguus and Issatchenkia orientalis. (Occurrence and dominance of yeast species in sourdough, Pulvirenti A, Solieri L, Gullo M, De Vero L, Giudici P., Lett Appl Microbiol. 2004;38(2):113-7.)
Finally, if I may comment briefly on the persistence of a well-maintained sourdough culture with a strong symbiosis. The yeast and lactobacilli, having evolved together for countless generations, have developed a symbiosis that confers a huge advantage over other microorganisms that might possibly invade and take over the culture. The culture microorganisms also have another huge advantage. There are around 10,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 sourdough microorganisms per gram of sourdough. Given this huge headstart, it is hard to imagine how it would be possible that yeast and bacteria floating around in the air and clinging to the flour (which Dr. Gänzle said he doesn't think are a significant source of sourdough microorganisms anyway) could arrive in such numbers and with such strength as to overcome these obstacles and "take over" a sourdough culture. Provided that the culture is well cared-for (not starved, not changed to a different food source, not subjected to extreme temperatures, etc.), old cultures have proven remarkably resistant to infection even following deliberate inoculations of commercial yeast. There are commercial sourdough cultures in Germany that have maintained the exact same microbiology ever since they have been studied (>50 years). There is ample evidence that it is, in fact, possible to maintain distinctly different cultures with distinctly different fermentation properties in one's home. I know, because I've done it. Now... if the culture is starved, if the food source is changed from white flour to rye or cornmeal, if sugar is added, if the culture is refreshed enough times ab ove 37C, etc. -- these things can create conditions under which the starter culture may be infected.
By the way, when I wrote "mistakes" I didn't intend it as a slight in any way.