Bittman on Cocktails

[slkinsey]

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.

Edited June 25, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[TVC]

I recall that in "How To Cook Everything" he instructed the reader to shake Manhattans and Martinis.

[Alcuin]

It's unfortunate that this video and article will only contribute to that mysterious program of misinformation about cocktails that dominates the majority of people's thinking about them. As someone who's fairly recently begun a self (re)education about cocktails, I just don't understand how something as simple as mixing drinks can be so misunderstood and abused by otherwise intelligent people. All it takes is some sound judgment.

[lostmyshape]

I recall that in "How To Cook Everything" he instructed the reader to shake Manhattans and Martinis.

←

"How To Cook Everything" might be the most disappointing cookbook that I've ever used. Got it because of the raves (maybe even from eGullet), and never use it anymore. I'm not even sure why I still own it. Bittman has a tendency to make things "easier" by grossly simplifying. But his simplifications often lead to dull and, sometimes, bad tasting food. I made around 20 recipes from the book and was let down by each and every one.

Bittman gets so much praise for making cooking accessable to everyone, but I just find it incomprehensible "dumbing down". Looks like he's just extended it to cocktails, to our horror.

[Bricktop]

I recall that in "How To Cook Everything" he instructed the reader to shake Manhattans and Martinis.

←

I would like to punch him in the face four or five times!

Is this just a case of "Cocktails are cool right now. Let me jump on the bandwagon?". Even so, as much as I like Lomonaco, he's not my list of the top 20,000 people I would think of if someone said "cocktail".

[FoodMan]

mmm...ok. Shaking Martinis and Manhattans might not be the 'proper' way of making these cocktails as purists might argue, but I do (covering head and soft body parts from punches...). This example is not nearly in the same ballpark as the issues outlined by slkinsey above though!! That was just bad and lazy.

His cookbooks are not for this thread to discuss, I did recommend his How too Cook Everything to several newbies as a starting point and it is a fantastic tool for them even though I have never owned it. I do own the 'Vegetarian' one and it has been a very useful book in my collection.

Edited June 25, 2008 by FoodMan (log)

[weinoo]

I was immediately worried when I saw the article this morning...didn't even bother looking at video, but I'm wondering where those NY Times fact checkers were.

[FoodMan]

I was immediately worried when I saw the article this morning...didn't even bother looking at video, but I'm wondering where those NY Times fact checkers were.

←

Maybe they only check the article (which, honestly, was not bad) but not the video.

[slkinsey]

The article, at least, has more correct information (although I'd hesitate to call a Daiquiri a "Gimlet with rum").

[Bricktop]

mmm...ok. Shaking Martinis and Manhattans might not be the 'proper' way of making these cocktails as purists might argue, but I do (covering head and soft body parts from punches...). This example is not nearly in the same ballpark as the issues outlined by slkinsey above though!! That was just bad and lazy.

Don't worry, I would never go below the belt. I am not usually dogmatic on something as cocktails, but I just don't like the effects of shaking a drink that IMO is better stirred. The cloudiness is offputting to me in shaken Manhattans, and makes them too cold for my taste. I am not a Martini drinker so I dare not comment on that score - those guys are nuts, and can fight their own corner. Edited June 25, 2008 by Bricktop (log)

[slkinsey]

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.

[jneu]

I totally agree with slkinsey. Of all the great mixologists in NY he opts to use "Brad" as his expert.

I have a funny hunch our man Brad attended the American Bartenders School.

[Bricktop]

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.

←

Yeah, because you have mastered the Boston shaker, where I have to go to the rubber mallet a lot, which costs me cool points when making drinks. /feels shame. But we are getting too far off topic. It's about Bittman's inadequacies not mine.

[slkinsey]

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.

[lostmyshape]

His cookbooks are not for this thread to discuss, I did recommend his How too Cook Everything to several newbies as a starting point and it is a fantastic tool for them even though I have never owned it. I do own the 'Vegetarian' one and it has been a very useful book in my collection.

←

my point was that Bittman's approach to cocktails in this article and video is the same to his approach to food in How To Cook Everything. he wants to demystify cooking/drinking by simplifying it and making a generic formula that can be improvised upon.

but here's the problem with that approach: improvising is really difficult until you have the skills needed. true in music, true in cooking, and true in cocktails. that's why I think it's more helpful to strictly follow classic recipes and get an understanding of how and why they work.

[slkinsey]

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.

[eje]

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."

[brinza]

I almost couldn't get past the opening paragraph. If I were to pick up a cocktail book in a store and this was the first thing I read, I'd certainly toss that book (very roughly) back onto the shelf (or stuff in the back so no one would find it):

mojitos, . . .  dark rum, a little simple syrup (half water, half sugar, heated until the sugar melts), loads of lime, not much mint. No club soda (a weakening aberration, even if it’s “correct”). No muddling (too much work, too showy, and I don’t even like the sound of the word). No white rum . . .

[FoodMan]

I almost couldn't get past the opening paragraph.  If I were to pick up a cocktail book in a store and this was the first thing I read, I'd certainly toss that book (very roughly) back onto the shelf (or stuff in the back so no one would find it):

mojitos, . . .  dark rum, a little simple syrup (half water, half sugar, heated until the sugar melts), loads of lime, not much mint. No club soda (a weakening aberration, even if it’s “correct”). No muddling (too much work, too showy, and I don’t even like the sound of the word). No white rum . . .

←

I would do the same, but at least in the article he KNOWS he is being incorrect/inauthentic or whatever. He chooses to make drinks to his own taste and that is what he is trying to convey to readers. Problem is, with his ingredients, it is not a mojito anymore, so he shouldn't call it that.

[slkinsey]

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.

[Alcuin]

I almost couldn't get past the opening paragraph.  If I were to pick up a cocktail book in a store and this was the first thing I read, I'd certainly toss that book (very roughly) back onto the shelf (or stuff in the back so no one would find it):

mojitos, . . .  dark rum, a little simple syrup (half water, half sugar, heated until the sugar melts), loads of lime, not much mint. No club soda (a weakening aberration, even if it’s “correct”). No muddling (too much work, too showy, and I don’t even like the sound of the word). No white rum . . .

←

I would do the same, but at least in the article he KNOWS he is being incorrect/inauthentic or whatever. He chooses to make drinks to his own taste and that is what he is trying to convey to readers. Problem is, with his ingredients, it is not a mojito anymore, so he shouldn't call it that.

←

My problem with his characteristically cavalier approach to formulas in favor of rugged individualism in this instance is that he seems to be promoting an anti-cocktailian mindset, not just an anti-establishment one. Because he likes boozy drinks, he derides a properly balanced margarita as "limeade." Because he thinks muddling is somehow effete or histrionic, he relegates it to a mere showpiece completely ignorant of the effect of releasing its essential oils so they can have some impact on the drink. I could go on.

His approach here ends up mystifying more than educating. If people try to mix drinks like he demonstrates, they might end up with something acceptable or that they like, but I suspect only after fumbling around in the dark for a while. This could then in turn lead to people thinking that cocktails are harder than they are and not worth the trouble. If he had showed how to make a real daiquiri, that's giving people something to go on and a place to start that's simple and that they can begin to modify.

[phlip]

Christ almighty where to began. Its times like this I truly believe I'm a masocist. I should just ignore such blatant hogwash....but I can't.

First of all is this the best the New York Times can do? They have had some really good coverage of the cocktail world, well written, well represented with the right people in the industry to represent their industry and then here is this ignorant

jack#@$! who on one hand claims there is nowhere in the city to get a "good margarita" and then proceeds to make one on tape with simple syrup. I think there is a reason this guy "always wound up using the same 3 ingrediants", its because he is a moron when it comes to cocktails (and maybe in general if he is foolish enough to appear as an authority on subject matter in which he is obviously ignorant). Good work all around, makes the front page that much more credible.

[lostmyshape]

His approach here ends up mystifying more than educating. If people try to mix drinks like he demonstrates, they might end up with something acceptable or that they like, but I suspect only after fumbling around in the dark for a while. This could then in turn lead to people thinking that cocktails are harder than they are and not worth the trouble. If he had showed how to make a real daiquiri, that's giving people something to go on and a place to start that's simple and that they can begin to modify.

←

exactly what i was trying to say, but with eloquence.

i'm sure bittman is a great cook, good enough that i bet i would like his mojito. he's just a terrible teacher, ignoring rules in order to make cooking accessible to the everyman. his whole attitude seems to be "sure, it would be better if..., but this is passable and so much easier." at least he adamant that quality ingredients should be used.

boy, we're touchy and self-righteous. getting angry over mark bittman...

Edited June 25, 2008 by lostmyshape (log)

[misterdyer]

I have made many mistakes in my life. I done more than a few stupid things, said even stupider things, and many times have tarnished my family's good name through ignorance and hubris.

I have even made a bad drink or three.

But I have never advertised my ineptitude to the world in the hallowed pages of the NYTimes. Because, as foolish as I can be at times, even I am not that much of a f***ing idiot. Every time that I think the term "douchebag" is grossy overused, I find a new and richly deserving candidate to apply it to.

The only joy of this dark episode is imagining how badly phlip's face contorted in agony as he watched the video. That must have been a show unto itself.

[cdh]

Maybe a throw-down is in order? Why don't Pegu/PDT/D&Co. (or another serious cocktail bar run by people reading this post) issue a challenge to Bittman... maybe the NYT tasting panel that convenes to do wine and beer stories could judge.

That's Bittman's schtick, after all... he's done a whole season on PBS of going to the big-name chefs of various cuisines, letting them do something the right way on camera, and then simplifying the hell out of their ideas and executing his own take in the second half of the program.

Try pitching this to the Times and see if you can get a follow-up done.

Edited June 26, 2008 by cdh (log)