slkinsey

Ed Levine's take Frank Bruni's take

Frm a health standpoint, there is nothing wrong with cooking with aluminum. The supposed connection to Alzheimer's has been exhaustively debunked. A few examples: Think about it: aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust! As for cooking . . . plenty of restaurants cook on raw aluminum. It's cheap and it has good thermal properties. Most of the time, depending on what you're cooking, there is nothing wrong with using a raw aluminum cooking surface. The only problem is that aluminum is highy reactive, and cooking certain foods on raw aluminum (especially acidic foods) can cause off-flavors. This reduces the versatility of the cookware. Other than raw aluminum, there is anodized aluminum, which is aluminum that has been treated with an electrolytic process to create a harder surface that is still somewhat reactive, but significantly less so than untreated aluminum. Calphalon is the most widely known example. The problems with anodized aluminum, in my opinion, are that it is very difficult to keep clean, it is fairly expensive, it's soft, and like all unclad aluminum, it has a tendency to warp -- especially at high heat. Beyond that, you get into clad aluminum and whatnot. But, in these cases, you are using the aluminum only for its (excellent) thermal properties -- the food never actually contacts the aluminum, but rather contacts the cladding. All this and more in my cookware class: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=25717

Exactly my thinking as well.

Like I say, anything's possible. But, Sean Combs notwithstanding, I don't think history is rife with examples of people who have successfully pursuaded everyone to stop using a reasonably well recognized and widely used designation in favor of a somewhat silly-sounding invented alternative.

Well... it will be interesting to see how it worrks out. It seems to me that the proponents of a particular style or movement don't often get to decide what it is called. For example, I don't think you'll find too many popular musicians of the l;ate 1970s and early 1980s who preferred to have their work described as "New Wave" -- and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_W...nds_and_artists

The reasons I can virtually guarantee it are (1) the fact that "molecular gastronomy" already has plenty of traction (it's much more difficult to replace an entrenched designation than it is to come up with a new one for something new); (2) the simple fact that the word "technoemotional" does not trip easily from the tongue (consider that we're having enough trouble getting world leaders to correctly pronounce "nuclear"); (3) it seems highly likely that plenty of chefs working in this style won't like the word "technoemotional" any more than they like "molecular gastronomy," further hindering any possibility this new designation has at replacing the current one; and (4) while certain infulential "movement" chefs are currently using the term, this doesn't seem like a group that is exactly known for tenacity when it comes to terminology, which makes me wonder what term they might prefer in 2010.. I mean... it's possible we'll all be saying things like, "the technoemotional cuisine of Ferran Adria" three years from now. But, if I were a betting man, I'd put pretty heavy odds on "technoemotional" seeming like a silly affectation when we look back in 2011. What's the Spanish word for it? I'd give that much better odds of sticking around in the English-speaking world (after all, "nouvelle cuisine" works much better than "new cooking").

I don't think "technoemotional cuisine" describes this style of cooking (or approach to cuisine or whatever you want to call it) any better than "molecular gastronomy." And I can virtually guarantee that the former will never catch on. The reality is that words describing a certain style or more-or-less cohesive historical stylistic period (etc.) come to signify the things that they describe rather than the other way around. What's so "new" about the style/approach we would now commonly recognize as "nouvelle cuisine"? What's so "romantic" about Rossini and Verdi, who wrote during the so-called "Romantic Period," that is "not romantic" about Mozart, who wrote during the so-called "Classical Period"? The answer is that "nouvelle" and "romantic" and "classical" have different meanings in these specific contexts... they have come to signify the things that they describe, regardless of whether "Il barbiere di Siviglia" is understood according to the usual meaning of "romantic" (etc.).

If the drink must be a new creation, then I agree that Audrey Saunders would probably have to be the creator. I would, however, maybe suggest the alternative of the Red Hook and its variations (Little Italy, Slope, etc) for perhaps their better espousement of the zietgeist, being variations on old-school drinks, all containing Rye, and all having bitter flavors as primary components. I think that the difference between some of Audrey's better-known cocktails, such as the Tantris Sidecar, Gin Gin Mule and Earl Gray MarTEAni, and something like the Red Hook and its variants, is that these drinks of Audrey's are clearly evoked from a paradigm of classic mixology, but are also modern in a way that makes them wholly of our time. The same cannot be said of the Red Hook, et al. One would not be served the MarTEAni or Tantris Sidecar at the Old Waldorf=Astoria . The Red Hook, on the other hand, would fit right in.

I wonder how difficult it is to "tool up" for a run of Malacca gin. I'd think they could run a batch once a year, and have very little difficulty selling all of it.

I certainly would. Exactly. While I think there are good reasons to suggest the Aviation for the "cocktail of the 2000s," I think it ultimately fails for just this reason. I would propose that such a cocktail would likely be one that is in the classic style, reflecting the emphatic return of the classic approach to mixology during this decade, but a new drink. Something like Audrey's Tantris Sidecar comes to mind as a possibility, because it is famous and influential, inspired by an iconic classic cocktail, and pushes the envelope a bit. Not sure what this refers to. I don't think anyone in the linked thread wrote that the Aviation fails as the "drink of the 2000s" because it was a revived historical cocktail rather than a contemporary cocktail.

I think it's difficult to proclaim anything a "drink of the decade" at all, but certainly not one that has only been around for the last year of that decade. In order for something to be a "drink of the decade" one would like to see that it (1) reflects, in some way, the cocktailian zeitgeist of a ten-year period; (2) attained some level of popularity, both in terms of its presence on menus and in the minds of cocktailians; (3) was influential; (4) was original; and (5) could be considered, perhaps on the basis of the foregoing, a "modern classic." It's possible, I suppose, that by 2015, fat-washing will be seen as the major cocktailian innovation and trend of the decade from 2005 and 2015. And, in that context, the Benton's Old Fashioned might come to be seen as a popular early adoption of that technique, and emblematic of that particular fork in the cocktailian road. But I'd suggest that it's a bit too early to make any such determination at this point. Regardless, in consideration of the fact that fat-washing is a technique that really is only beginning to be explored in the last years of this decade, I wouldn't think that a fat-wash Old Fashioned would be a particularly good choice to represent the mixological trends of this decade. (Not that it isn't a brilliant and delicious drink, of course.) In a similar phenomenon, one notices that recent athletes and recent musicians and recent songs and recent writers and recent movies often figure too prominently in any "the best of" lists compiled during any era. For example, if one were to look back at a list of the "25 greatest quarterbacks of all time" voted upon by football fans in 1990, it would likely include a number of names from current players in that era that would seem ridiculous on such a list today. That said, it perhaps seems that in picking a "cocktail of the decade" one isn't seeking to pick a "best" cocktail of the decade, but rather an outstanding and influential cocktail created during a ten year period that also somehow captures and embodies the cocktailian zeitgeist of the decade. In considering this question, we would need to think not only of what might represent the cocktailian zeitgeist of today, but also of 2002 and 2006.

eBay.

"Maw" is an colloquial word meaning "mouth" or "jaw". . . or, curiously enough, meaning "stomach." In the American South, if you hear "hog maw" it most likely refers to a pig stomach. Caul fat is a fatty membrane that surrounds the internal organs of a pig, cow, etc. Completely different.

That's about as good as it gets on the UWS.

Hmmm - so one eats steaming hot bowls of ramen on the street? Ramen-ya. . . Street. . . Same thing.

I usually say "cocktailian bartender" to describe a working bartender with knowledge and skills at making cocktails. I should point out that I am neither "for" nor "against" the word "mixologist." That said, I do think there is a useful distinction to be made between the skill of creating cocktails and the skill of preparing cocktails. I would propose to call the former "mixology" and the latter "bartending" -- but perhaps there are other words that suffice. I have the sense, however, that it's not quite appropriate to call someone who makes a living as a consultant who designs cocktails and cocktail lists for bars and restaurants, or as a writer who creates cockails for columns and books a "bartender."

So, a bunch of us sampled Perla Dry at Pegu Club last night. We all tasted Perla Dry side-by-side with regular Luxardo, and Kenta was kind enough to mix us a flight of Aviations including one with regular Luxardo, one with half/half, and one with Perla Dry. It was easy to distinguish between the samples in a blind tasting. Everyone immediately identified Perla Dry just from the nose, and this was as true for the Aviations as it was from the straight liqueur tastings. It's not easy to say exactly what makes Perla Dry different from Luxardo's Maraschino, as Perla Dry still has all the hallmarks that say "Luxardo Maraschino." But the flavor is deeper, there is more complexity and some distinctive elements to the nose. I think there is also some benefit to the higher proof. Considering the slight difference in price (Perla Dry was priced less than a dollar more than regular Luxardo Maraschino at Spec's in Houston), I would think that Perla Dry is an obvious way to increase quality and interest in Maraschino cocktails.

Back in Mitch's day, he got around Chinatown with nothing more than a scrap of old vellum with entire sections designated "there be dragons here", a sextant and dead reckoning!

Both of the first two pronunciations you suggest would be within various German accents. The most "correct" pronunciation of the "e" in "tek" would be "ay", but some German-speakers would pronounce it with a hard "ee" while others would do it with more of a soft "eh". Not sure why they're leaving off the last syllable, which would normally be pronounced. On the other hand, The people at Così persist in calling it "CO-zee" instead of "co-SEE", so it's not like there aren't places that go with the mispronunciation flow. Here is a wav file with the correct German pronunciation..

That's a point with some merit, if inelegantly put. I would like to point out, however, that there are plenty of people out there designing amazing cocktails who are not making their day-to-day living "behind a real bar, serving real people." Indeed, some of the most reknown creators of cocktails working today no longer put in a regular shift behind the bar. For example, here in NYC Julie Reiner and Audrey Saunders aren't doing 4 nights a week behind their bars, and it's not clear to me that Dave Wondrich has ever made his living behind the bar shaking out cocktails.

I use neither cream nor onion when making spaghetti alla carbonara, and on the occasions I incorporate garlic in this dish I follow the practice of warming a few crushed whole cloves in the oil and then discarding them. One problem that I think many Americans have when making this dish is the desire for the guanciale (or pancetta or other cured fatty pork) to be crispy like American-style bacon. This leads to overcooking and overproduction of brown reaction products, which in turn makes the dish seem too "colored." Rather, the fatty pork should be slowly rendered just until it begins to think about getting a few crisp spots on the outside, and no further. I prefer to use thin slices of guanciale for this rather than the cubes that others use (I also think this shape is easier to twirl up with the spaghetti). I also like Batali's trick of reserving the egg yolks and placing an unbroken yolk in a "nest" of spaghetti on each plate to be mixed together with the pasta by each diner (warmed dishes are essential for this). Using cream in spaghetti alla carbonara is a "cheating" workaround, similar to the use of cream in risotto, for those who are not confident of their ability to create a properly creamy texture using just eggs and pork fat. Lots of extra-coarse cracked pepper is absolutely essential.

Since there seems to be some confusion... The pronunciation is "ah-po-TEK-eh"

The whole "master" part of it is folderol. As for "mixologist," I suppose it has two possible meanings... The first would simply be "cocktailian bartender." This is not too terribly useful, in my opinion, and probably a good reason why these guys prefer to be called simply "bartenders." The second would be to denote someone who designs and creates cocktails, and differentiate that person from someone who prepares cocktails and tends a cocktail bar. These are two different skill sets that are often, but not always combined. There are some "mixologists" who don't tend bar and/or may not be particularly skilled at bartending (which involves a lot more than just making the cocktails properly... there is the element of speed, consistency under pressure, keeping track of multiple tabs, paying sufficient attention to different groups of customers, etc.). And there are some cocktailian "bartenders" who may not be the best at creating new cocktails. To me, this is the only useful and meaningful application of "mixologist."

So... I'm tasting Luxardo's Maraschino and Perla Dry side-by-side. The Perla has a deeper flavor, seems less sweet, and perhaps has a bit more of a grappa-like nose. I'm going to take a bottle down to play with some friends tomorrow and we'll see what we think. More to come...

With all due respect (and plenty is due), Florence Fabricant hardly strikes me as much of a cocktailian. Or even someone who particularly knows about spirits. Although perhaps I'm missing this aspect of her work and writing. I don't think that Dave is incorrect in suggesting that genever is not as felicitous for mixed drinks as most other common mixing spirits. The flavor is subtle enough that I can see many modifiers obscuring genever's "specialness" -- and the combination of malty plus junipery can make it somewhat cranky to pair up. On the other hand, as Chris points out, "harder" doesn't equal "impossible." Genevieve has turned out to work very well in some improbable contexts, such as Phil Ward's Last Word variation. That said, Bols isn't as emphatically flavored as Genevieve.