slkinsey

If you're a Chef, you are also a good cook. It's a requirement. You don't need to be a great cook, but you do need to be a good cook. Perhaps more importantly, you need to be an experienced and professional cook... I tend to agree... I just thought it was an interesting digression to explore for people who were inclined to think about it beyond their initial knee-jerk reaction. More hypothetical than anything else. For whatever its worth, one generally has to be at least a good dancer to be a good choreographer as well. That said, many great choreographers were well beyond their best days as dancers when they did their best choreography, and I would agree that one need not be a great cook to be a great chef. Likewise, I would imagine that some chefs of long standing may lose their chops for working on the line. Your point about being an experienced and professional cook goes directly to my hypothetical requirements of "understands the workings of the professional kitchen" and "understands cooking." I did not mean to imply an underdstanding of these things from reading books.

Does a person have to be literate and coherent to be President? To be a good one, yea.

I wonder, in some ways, whether it is absolutely necessary that a chef needs to be a good cook, so long as he/she understands the workings of the professional kitchen, understands cooking, is a capable manager, can recognize well-cooked food, has good taste and has a good creative mind. Does one have to be a good dancer in order to be a good choreographer? Certainly I think that one could be a great chef and a mediocre cook, and I can see where someone could understand intimately what a perfectly cooked piece of meat is without being able to produce it him/herself on a consistent basis. That's what cooking staffs are for. Now, that said, I would imagine that most decent chefs are good cooks, or were good cooks at one time. As a related side note... I remember seeing a "documentary" on young chefs that was produced back before Emeril Lagasse hit the big time. There was an interview with a woman who had hired him for one of his first big gigs down in New Orleans, and she said something to the effect that he had the reputation as a guy who couldn't cook but who really worked well with people, and that his kitchens turned out great food.

I googled and found this article with the Keller recipe.

beurre blanc?

Actually, it's "Che-Chelia", (shortened to "Che-Chi" which can be "Chickpea"or "wart", depending on where you are in Italy)... I would agree if we were talking about modern Italian and not old Latin. Well we must dig out those recordings of Cicero ("chickpea" or "wart" again). Yea... I think I have a few old Cicero 78s lying around somewhere. Seriously, though, the academic consensus (as opposed to Roman Catholic Church tradition) seems to be that Latin Cs are pronounced "k" and not "ch" as in modern Italian and RC Church Latin. But it seems we have traveled fairly off-topic with this tangent, so I'll say no more on it.

Actually, it's "Che-Chelia", (shortened to "Che-Chi" which can be "Chickpea"or "wart", depending on where you are in Italy)... I would agree if we were talking about modern Italian and not old Latin.

I believe it involves the same logic which means the word 'Celtic' is pronounced 'Seltic', instead of 'Keltic'. Actually, AFAIK, "seltic" versus "keltic" is more or less a matter of preference, with "seltic" prevailing until relatively recently. Clickety. Interesting link, I have long ago given up being critical of USA v UK english pronouciation (except for droppin the 'H' in 'Herb', that really does suck), language is dynamic and who is to say what is 'correct', especially if incorporated a foreign word. Anyway, Celtic come from 'Keltoi', so it should be prounouced with a hard 'C'. I gather that "seltic" is actually a UK pronunciation, as it has been said that way in English for some 400 years. I would also consider that number of years sufficient for the word to be considered an English one and subject to regular English pronunciation customs apart from its roots in another language. As the author of the linked article points out, if we are going to go by the rule that the original Greek pronunciation means it has to be "keltic" then, by all rights, "Cecilia" should be pronounced "kekilia" as those Cs were hard in ancient Latin. 400 years from now, I will consider it sufficient to say that "brooshetuh" is a correct pronunciation as well. In all seriousness, I wonder if that particular mistake is made because of the US's multi-ethic makeup and the fact that USAmericans have been more likely to see "sch" in the context of German words and pronounced as "sh" (as in "Schultz").

I believe it involves the same logic which means the word 'Celtic' is pronounced 'Seltic', instead of 'Keltic'. Actually, AFAIK, "seltic" versus "keltic" is more or less a matter of preference, with "seltic" prevailing until relatively recently. Clickety.

only people who know what scampi means in italian know it is somehow "wrong" or funny. the rest of us just accept scampi (no italics, as it's an english word in this usage) as a preparation. The "shrimp scampi" I can remember having in the UK many years ago were essentially breaded and deep fried shrimp. Anyway... just because something is "commonly (mis)understood" as having a certain meaning doesn't mean that it isn't still misused. It just means that the misuse is commonly understood as having a certain meaning. To make a comparison, everyone knows what I am talking about if I say, "ATM machine" but it is still a misuse.

Actually, that refers to the place of origin. Kind of like saying "Ali di pollo alla Buffalesa."

AFAIK, olein is any fat that is liquid at room temperature but becomes solid at around 0 centigrade. Shortening, in my understanding, is vegetable oils that have been hydrogenated so they are solid at room temperature.

Yea, okay... but that still doesn't mean it isn't stupid. And wrong. Mmmmm... give me an extra helping of "squid seppia" please!

Actually, a scampo is not exactly the same thing as a shrimp, which is called gambero, gamberetto, etc. Scampi are actually prawns of the "lobsterette" type, and not really related to shrimp. So, really, "shrimp scampi" is even stupider. It's like saying, "shrimp langoustine" -- which I guess is kind of like saying "chicken pork."

Although I am an northeast big city type, both my parents are from the South and I spent every summer as a child at my Grandfather's house in the mountains outside Black Mountain, NC. I remember many such meals, and try to get back there as often as I can. Is there any better place in July? Not for me.

Easy there Chief. If you want the credit, let it be known that you said the word "Maestro" first in this thread. As to your other comment see my earlier remarks to the effect of: I would also say that conductors of long tenure with a certain body of musicians may be habitually referred to as "Maestro" by the people under their baton. And, of course, as I pointed out before, you could have seen someone say "how ya doing, Maestro" to Luciano Pavarotti, but that doesn't mean that it was right.

I have always thought of the title "Chef" in the cooking world being kind of like the title "Maestro" in my profession. In general, they are the titles from a classical tradition used in a professional setting to refer to the person in charge of the proceedings -- the person who has ultimate creative control and responsibility. In my experience, these titles are only "mandatory" while the person in charge is exercising his/her capacity as the person in charge. This is to say that I always refer to the conductor as "Maestro" while in rehearsals, but do not necessarily feel obligated to call him/her by that title outside of rehearsal. I would imagine that similar things are true for people in the professional kitchen. While I don't think that the quality of the music or food impacts whether one deserves the title "Chef" or "Maestro," I do think it is important that the context in which it is used is within the parameters of the respective classical traditions and cultures. The leader of a rock band is not a "Maestro" -- neither is the manager of a Burritoville a "Chef." After a while some conductors attain such a level of respect/prominence/political influence that they are always referred to as "Maestro" -- this is the case with Maestro Alberto Zedda, for instance. Historically, this has also been the case with composers (e.g., "Maestro Rossini"), but it was also commonplace in those days that composers conducted and/or otherwise supervised performances of their music. I assume that similar things are true for people in the restaurant profession. One may be referred to as a "Chef" or "Maestro" as a reference to one's usual job or as a token of respect for past/current accomplishments in that capacity. It is also the case that people in the classical music business are often wrongly called "Maestro" by people who don't really know any better. It is never appropriate to say "Maestro Luciano Pavarotti." Furthermore, no one outside the context of professional classical music should be called "Maestro." One does not call an amateur pianist or guitarist "Maestro So-and-so." It is quite clear that similar misapplications happen with "Chef" on a regular basis as well. A home cook, no matter how accomplished or celebrated, is not a "Chef." Nothing pains me more than to have a well-meaning friend introduce me to someone in the food profession as "a great chef." Similar mistakes are consistently made with "diva" and "prima donna" but that is rather outside the scope of this comparison. I guess it has something to do with these terms entering the popular vocabulary. No one goes around wrongly calling people "Concertmaster" or "Garde Manger."

I can already see the recipes in a future NYT Food Section for dishes served "sur shingle."

Don't softeners work using sodium? That can be a problem for some folks. How does a water softener work? from HowStuffWorks.com.

Not exactly, I gather. Using my mind-reading abilities, I deduce that she isn't sufficiently compelled to actually post a letter, but might be in the mood to send a scathing email... Holly is a girl. Holly is a girl. Nyah nyah. D'oh! Just goes to show I should pay more attention when typing. Oh well... whenever I hear other people say, "Sam," they're usually talking to their dog...

Not exactly, I gather. Using my mind-reading abilities, I deduce that she isn't sufficiently compelled to actually post a letter, but might be in the mood to send a scathing email...

Ok, a hint. For cannibal's pie, a man's testicles would be appropriate. Ah HAH! Shepherd's Pie should have sheep testicles!

You know, Holly, it's really considered impolite to criticise a man's testicles.

You will notice a difference in the taste and appearance of your coffee if you use bottled or filtered water. Your best bet in terms of cost and convenience is a Brita or other similar filter pitcher.Keep in mind that a Britta or similar charcoal filter won't do anything to cut down the dissolved minerals (calcium and magnesium) that make water "hard." For that you need a water softener. An activated charcoal filter won't help the scaling problem at all, AFAIK. Likewise, it won't help any flavor/appearance problems caused by the minerals. So, yes, ultimately you are better off using bottled water, and any cheap, soft (i.e., non-mineral) bottled water will do. That said, as FG points out, an activated charcoal filter will make some difference in the flavor. Whether or not it is enough difference is up to your taste buds. Here in NYC, where we are blessed with some of the best, softest tap water in the world, a charcoal filter (and perhaps a sediment filter -- you would be shocked at what I catch in mine) is all we need. Edited for clarity.

Yay! Welcome to the cult-- er, club! In a few more months, when the new models are out, we'll have to talk you into roasting your own beans. I second what others have said about the need for a quality burr grinder. Check out the new doserless Rocky grinder from Rancilio.