Bittman on Cocktails

[weinoo]

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.

←

Yeah, and on every one of those shows, I always get a kick out of watching the chefs roll their eyes when Bittman does it "his way."

[slkinsey]

I didn't want this to turn into a bitter bout of Bittman bashing! Overall, I like his work. I just think this represented him at his very worst, primarily because he doesn't seem to have much background in cocktails.

Unfortunately, I don't think that cocktails are a particularly good fit for his extreme reductive approach. We're not talking about reducing a restaurant recipe with 22 ingredients and 13 individual steps into something equally delicious, if less refined, that contains many of the same ideas and can be accomplished with 5 ingredients and 3 steps.

Ultimately, making cocktails is very simple once you have a recipe or even a basic ratio. You want to make a Margarita? Fine. It's got three ingredients: tequila, Cointreau and fresh lime juice. Let's say you're using 2 ounces of tequila. There are a few ways you can make it. An ounce each of lime juice and Cointreau will give you a bracing tart drink. A half-ounce of each will give you a more spirit-centric drink. 3/4 ounce of each is in the middle somewhere. Want something that focuses more on the liqueur? Use 1.5 ounces of tequila, 1 ounce of Cointreau and a half ounce of lime. Or go further in that direction with 1.5 ounces each of tequila and Cointreau and 3/4 ounce of lime. Now we have more or less outlined all the usual variations of the Margarita.

This would then be an opportunity for a reductive approach to say: "See, they're all just ratios. 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 or 3:2:1 or 2:2:1 and so on. All you need to do is think about how you like your 'New Orleans Sours' and you can make a million of them using these ratios. Switch up the spirit and the sour as much as you like. Cognac and lemon? You got yourself a Sidecar. Citrus vodka, lime and a splash of cranberry? A Cosmopolitan. Spend the summer sipping your way through a bottle of Cointreau and trying different ratios and different spirits. Then, think about this: there are lotws of other liqueurs you can use instead of Cointreau? There's..."

It's all very simple, really. Much easier than, say, making your own pizza from scratch. But, of course, you need to have at least a basic understanding of cocktails to explain this to someone -- and that's apparently something Mark Bittman doesn't have. Step #2 would have been going to someone else who has some expertise in cocktails. Instead we got Lomonaco and his sidekick Brad. And, unfortunately, since he didn't have the background to apply his reductive approach in the right direction (ratios), he ended up just dumbing down what is already pretty simple.

Edited June 26, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[Darren72]

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.

←

Yeah, and on every one of those shows, I always get a kick out of watching the chefs roll their eyes when Bittman does it "his way."

←

While I'm not defending Bittman's cocktail foray, this is not an accurate statement about his tv show "How to Cook Everything" or "The Best Food in the World". It's clear that he has a good rapport with the chefs and they generally respect his dishes and goal. Not all of his dishes hit. But I've never seen a chef "roll his eyes," act disrespectfully, or express dislike of a dish in anything other than a friendly and constructive manner.

[Darren72]

I didn't want this to turn into a bitter bout of Bittman bashing!  Overall, I like his work.  I just think this represented him at his very worst, primarily because he doesn't seem to have much background in cocktails.

Unfortunately, I don't think that cocktails are a particularly good fit for his extreme reductive approach.  We're not talking about reducing a restaurant recipe with 22 ingredients and 13 individual steps into something equally delicious, if less refined, that contains many of the same ideas and can be accomplished with 5 ingredients and 3 steps.

Ultimately, making cocktails is very simple once you have a recipe or even a basic ratio.  You want to make a Margarita?  Fine.  It's got three ingredients: tequila, Cointreau and fresh lime juice.  Let's say you're using 2 ounces of tequila.  There are a few ways you can make it.  An ounce each of lime juice and Cointreau will give you a bracing tart drink.  A half-ounce of each will give you a more spirit-centric drink.  3/4 ounce of each is in the middle somewhere.  Want something that focuses more on the liqueur? Use 1.5 ounces of tequila, 1 ounce of Cointreau and a half ounce of lime.   Or go further in that direction with 1.5 ounces each of tequila and Cointreau and 3/4 ounce of lime.  Now we have more or less outlined all the usual variations of the Margarita.

This would then be an opportunity for a reductive approach to say: "See, they're all just ratios.  2:1:1 or 4:1:1 or 3:2:1 or 2:2:1 and so on.  All you need to do is think about how you like your 'New Orleans Sours' and you can make a million of them using these ratios.  Switch up the spirit and the sour as much as you like.  Cognac and lemon?  You got yourself a Sidecar.  Citrus vodka, lime and a splash of cranberry?  A Cosmopolitan.  Spend the summer sipping your way through a bottle of Cointreau and trying different ratios and different spirits.  Then, think about this:  there are lotws of other liqueurs you can use instead of Cointreau?  There's..."

It's all very simple, really.  Much easier than, say, making your own pizza from scratch.  But, of course, you need to have at least a basic understanding of cocktails to explain this to someone -- and that's apparently something Mark Bittman doesn't have.  Step #2 would have been going to someone else who has some expertise in cocktails.  Instead we got Lomonaco and his sidekick Brad.  And, unfortunately, since he didn't have the background to apply his reductive approach in the right direction (ratios), he ended up just dumbing down what is already pretty simple.

←

I realize that the video has a lot of misinformation, but the article pretty much follows your script about varying the ingredients:

I figured out how I liked my margarita and ordered it that way: good tequila, a teaspoon or so of triple sec, and lots of lime. (Some bartenders acted like that was a novel drink. Others said I wanted a traditional margarita. I suppose.)

Then I did some thinking and reading about cocktails. It turns out that if you use vodka instead of tequila, the margarita becomes the kamikaze. Swap cognac for the vodka and lemon for the lime and you have a sidecar.

Look at the pattern — you might call it the basic recipe — of these drinks, many of which might be grouped as “sours”: they combine liquor with water (usually in the form of ice), a sour flavoring (usually citrus juice) and a sweetener (simple syrup, or something more expensive and flavorful, like Cointreau). You might add a splash of soda or, if you like, fruit juice, which gets you into beachcomber or cosmo territory.

He even makes your point about varying ratios to get the drink that fits your tastes (although I think you say it more clearly):

The parallels with cooking are clear. You can start with good ingredients, or not. You can start with someone else’s recipe (on which there are usually a score or more variations) or make the cocktail your own. The point — and this clearly comes from the perspective of cook, not bartender — is this: Why not make cocktails from scratch, ignoring the names and acknowledging your preferences? Why not treat the margarita like a dish of pasta with tomatoes, assuming a few given ingredients but varying them according to your taste?

I haven't watched the accompanying video, but it sounds like he picked the wrong person to host it and said some strange things. But the article itself isn't bad at all. Could he have packed more information into it? Yes. Could he have been a little more clear about the relevant ratios? (How much is 'lots of lime'?) Of course.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Darren72 (log)

[slkinsey]

Bittman sayd, "Why not treat the margarita like a dish of pasta with tomatoes, assuming a few given ingredients but varying them according to your taste?"

Why not, indeed? But one might hope that (1) Bittman would suggest that someone actually make a fairly orthodox pasta sauce or two before thinking outside the box; (2) he would provide readers with some understanding of how good pasta sauces work and why they are typically structured the way they are; and (3) he wouldn't use as his demonstration example a pasta sauce consisting of a cup of ground tomato, 1/4 clove of garlic and a tablespoon of red pepper.

Here is his "master recipe" for cocktails: "For me, most cocktails look like this: A stiff pour of alcohol, say a quarter cup, over ice; very little sweetener, a teaspoon or at the most two; a tablespoon or more of lime juice." That scales to 2 ounces of spirit, 1/6 - 1/3 ounce of sweet and 1/2 ounce or more of lime juice. This is hardly an example of good mixology.

Then, he has the audacity to write that the idea of making your "cocktails from scratch, ignoring the names and acknowledging your preferences" is one that "clearly comes from the perspective of cook, not bartender." Like there's a single cocktailian bartender out there who doesn't know how to adjust Margarita or Sidecar ratios in dozens of ways to accommodate ingredients as well as individual tastes.

ETA: He also misses the boat on a golden opportunity to talk about balance in a sour cocktail. How to figure your way towards making a cocktail that is neither sour nor sweet, but both and neither.

Edited June 26, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[Darren72]

I've watched the video and I think slkinsey was a little harsh in his original assessment.

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?

Is it 30%, 90%? Who knows and who cares? How would you ever determine such a thing (80% of drinks ordered this year? Ordered ever? 80% of the drinks listed in some book?) He's clearly making the point that many drinks have sweet and sour components.

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. 

It is unfortunate that Brad refereed to a "classic" Margarita and then made a drink with tequila, simple syrup, and lime juice. Although there certainly isn't anything wrong with making or enjoying this drink, "classic" is not the correct description.

They weren't saying that the Patron by itself wasn't palatable. Earlier in the episode, Lomonaco says that a cocktail takes raw alcohol, and then adds ingredients to make it more palatable. When they make the Margarita, he comes back to this idea and says that the simple sugar makes the drink more palatable. He also says that the alcohol (i.e. the Patron) has a nice taste on its own. He clearly isn't implying anything different.

So what's wrong with saying that other ingredients make the alcohol more palatable? If I may quote from page 71 of The Joy of Mixology, "Mixed drinks of all kinds should glide down the throat easily, and since most cocktails have a spirit base, the addition of ingredients containing less or no alcohol is needed to cut the strength of the drink and make it more palatable." Lomonaco was saying the exact same thing.

"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 should be clear that he is saying there isn't much different in the method of alcohol, sweet, and sour. He clearly isn't saying that there isn't much difference between a Margarita and a Manhattan.

[Darren72]

Bittman sayd, "Why not treat the margarita like a dish of pasta with tomatoes, assuming a few given ingredients but varying them according to your taste?"

Why not, indeed?  But one might hope that (1) Bittman would suggest that someone actually make a fairly orthodox pasta sauce or two before thinking outside the box; (2) he would provide readers with some understanding of how good pasta sauces work and why they are typically structured the way they are; and (3) he wouldn't use as his demonstration example a pasta sauce consisting of a cup of ground tomato, 1/4 clove of garlic and a tablespoon of red pepper.

Here is his "master recipe" for cocktails: "For me, most cocktails look like this: A stiff pour of alcohol, say a quarter cup, over ice; very little sweetener, a teaspoon or at the most two; a tablespoon or more of lime juice."  That scales to 2 ounces of spirit, 1/6 - 1/3 ounce of sweet and 1/2 ounce or more of lime juice.  This is hardly an example of good mixology.

Then, he has the audacity to write that the idea of making your "cocktails from scratch, ignoring the names and acknowledging your preferences" is one that "clearly comes from the perspective of cook, not bartender."  Like there's a single cocktailian bartender out there who doesn't know how to adjust Margarita or Sidecar ratios in dozens of ways to accommodate ingredients as well as individual tastes.

ETA:  He also misses the boat on a golden opportunity to talk about balance in a sour cocktail.  How to figure your way towards making a cocktail that is neither sour nor sweet, but both and neither.

←

All good points, no question. I think he was trying to be the opposite of the person who says "You have to make it this way...". I agree that he could have done a better job though.

[slkinsey]

I've watched the video and I think slkinsey was a little harsh in his original assessment.

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?

Is it 30%, 90%? Who knows and who cares? How would you ever determine such a thing (80% of drinks ordered this year? Ordered ever? 80% of the drinks listed in some book?) He's clearly making the point that many drinks have sweet and sour components.

If you don't know, then don't say. He was clearly implying "the majority." But, again, this goes back to my main point, which is: don't "speak from authority" on a subject in which you are materially in the dark.

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 should be clear that he is saying there isn't much different in the method of alcohol, sweet, and sour. He clearly isn't saying that there isn't much difference between a Margarita and a Manhattan.

Pancakes and biscuits both contain flour, milk, fat and baking powder. That's my point. In fact, pancakes and biscuits are more closely related than a Margarita and a Manhattan. And yet, I'm guessing we'd be saying it was kind of dumb if a guy did a show saying "I looked around at a bunch of bread-like recipes and noticed that about 80% of them are made with flour, milk, fat and baking powder" then did a show on pancakes and then, at the conclusion, made biscuits saying, "I'm not seeing a lot of differences here." How about this? How about, there is a big difference between simple syrup and vermouth? How about, there's an even bigger difference between lime juice and bitters?! To be fair, if his point was "cocktails are made out of liquor and other stuff" then it's all spot on! But that's hardly helpful.

[Alcuin]

I've watched the video and I think slkinsey was a little harsh in his original assessment.

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?

Is it 30%, 90%? Who knows and who cares? How would you ever determine such a thing (80% of drinks ordered this year? Ordered ever? 80% of the drinks listed in some book?) He's clearly making the point that many drinks have sweet and sour components.

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. 

It is unfortunate that Brad refereed to a "classic" Margarita and then made a drink with tequila, simple syrup, and lime juice. Although there certainly isn't anything wrong with making or enjoying this drink, "classic" is not the correct description.

They weren't saying that the Patron by itself wasn't palatable. Earlier in the episode, Lomonaco says that a cocktail takes raw alcohol, and then adds ingredients to make it more palatable. When they make the Margarita, he comes back to this idea and says that the simple sugar makes the drink more palatable. He also says that the alcohol (i.e. the Patron) has a nice taste on its own. He clearly isn't implying anything different.

So what's wrong with saying that other ingredients make the alcohol more palatable? If I may quote from page 71 of The Joy of Mixology, "Mixed drinks of all kinds should glide down the throat easily, and since most cocktails have a spirit base, the addition of ingredients containing less or no alcohol is needed to cut the strength of the drink and make it more palatable." Lomonaco was saying the exact same thing.

"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 should be clear that he is saying there isn't much different in the method of alcohol, sweet, and sour. He clearly isn't saying that there isn't much difference between a Margarita and a Manhattan.

←

You can maybe argue point for point that what Bittman says is only slightly off the mark or unfortunately phrased through most of the piece, but overall the principles he's laying out for people (who are assumed no little about how to mix drinks) are absolutely not sound. Only in a bizzaro universe is a margarita and a manhattan mixed on the same principles. Bitters are not sour and sweet vermouth does not resemble simple syrup. A daiquiri is not the same thing as a tom collins. The article on the whole amounts to a disaster from the perspective of educating people about cocktails.

My strong reaction against it is that stuff like this will more likely hurt than help teach people about cocktails. I don't like this because I want people to be educated about cocktails so that the quality of bars increases due to greater demand for quality and craft since I don't live in New York and don't have any access where I live to even one good bar. Bittman's sad display of ignorance cumulatively does far more harm than good.

ETA: slkinsey beat me to the punch on a lot of these points.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Alcuin (log)

[Darren72]

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 should be clear that he is saying there isn't much different in the method of alcohol, sweet, and sour. He clearly isn't saying that there isn't much difference between a Margarita and a Manhattan.

Pancakes and biscuits both contain flour, milk, fat and baking powder. That's my point. In fact, pancakes and biscuits are more closely related than a Margarita and a Manhattan. And yet, I'm guessing we'd be saying it was kind of dumb if a guy did a show saying "I looked around at a bunch of bread-like recipes and noticed that about 80% of them are made with flour, milk, fat and baking powder" then did a show on pancakes and then, at the conclusion, made biscuits saying, "I'm not seeing a lot of differences here." How about this? How about, there is a big difference between simple syrup and vermouth? How about, there's an even bigger difference between lime juice and bitters?! To be fair, if his point was "cocktails are made out of liquor and other stuff" then it's all spot on! But that's hardly helpful.

←

I think he's just trying to say that the drinks that are seemingly very different are, in fact, related; they are variations on a theme. You know more than he does about cocktails and see that he has glossed over important differences. But I think you are also reading a lot more into his words than you should be (and his words from a video - not the article, when he presumably had more time to choose his words carefully).

When writers in other sections of the paper write about things that I know about, they get a lot of details wrong. It's natural to ask "why didn't they just ask so-and-so!?" Sadly, that isn't how most media works.

[slkinsey]

I think he's just trying to say that the drinks that are seemingly very different are, in fact, related; they are variations on a theme.

But they aren't! The Margarita and the Manhattan are not variations on the same theme.

You know more than he does about cocktails and see that he has glossed over important differences. But I think you are also reading a lot more into his words than you should be (and his words from a video - not the article, when he presumably had more time to choose his words carefully).

When writers in other sections of the paper write about things that I know about, they get a lot of details wrong. It's natural to ask "why didn't they just ask so-and-so!?" Sadly, that isn't how most media works.

We still call them on it every day in these forums.

Yes, I agree that the written piece is better than the video... although I wouldn't necessarily say it rises to the level of "good." The video suffers considerably compared to his other videos where he speaks quasi-extemporaneously because he doesn't have any meaningful background in this area, and because he didn't do the video with someone who does. So, what we have instead is a situation similar to a bartender from London shooting a video about East North Carolina barbecue with... well, Michael Lomonoco.

[Darren72]

I think he's just trying to say that the drinks that are seemingly very different are, in fact, related; they are variations on a theme.

But they aren't! The Margarita and the Manhattan are not variations on the same theme.

I think we're going in circles on a pretty trivial semantic issue here. The drinks are variations on his theme - a theme that you view as misleading, uniformed, or both. We get it. Classifying vermouth as sweet and bitters as sour is wrong, wrong, just plain wrong. These two drinks are from different branches of the cocktail tree and shouldn't be discussed together. Again, we get it. So why do I keep replying? I guess it's because I think tying the phrase "I don't see a lot of differences here" to a fundamental misunderstanding of mixology seems like a cheap shot and pushing intellectual content where none really exists.

[cdh]

Bittman is, in fact, wrong. You can't argue with that. Pointing it out is not "bashing" him.

Manhattans and Margaritas are not related mixologically any more than birds and snakes are related zoologically. Stop making excuses for factual errors by trying to prefix "in his opinion" to the erroneous facts. Bitters are not sour. Bitters in a Manhattan are used in a proportion nothing like lime is used in a Margarita. And "sweet" vermouth is nothing like Cointreau or simple syrup. It is a bad analogy, and factually wrong. And it is confusing. Because it is wrong.

[weinoo]

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.

←

Yeah, and on every one of those shows, I always get a kick out of watching the chefs roll their eyes when Bittman does it "his way."

←

While I'm not defending Bittman's cocktail foray, this is not an accurate statement about his tv show "How to Cook Everything" or "The Best Food in the World". It's clear that he has a good rapport with the chefs and they generally respect his dishes and goal. Not all of his dishes hit. But I've never seen a chef "roll his eyes," act disrespectfully, or express dislike of a dish in anything other than a friendly and constructive manner.

←

Watch Jean Georges snatch the quail or chicken away from Bittman again - sure, it's friendly, but it's also hey, dude, you have no clue what you're doing, give me that knife before you hurt yourself. No disrespect, we're all friends. Same thing we're doing here.

[Alcuin]

I think he's just trying to say that the drinks that are seemingly very different are, in fact, related; they are variations on a theme.

But they aren't! The Margarita and the Manhattan are not variations on the same theme.

I think we're going in circles on a pretty trivial semantic issue here. The drinks are variations on his theme - a theme that you view as misleading, uniformed, or both. We get it. Classifying vermouth as sweet and bitters as sour is wrong, wrong, just plain wrong. These two drinks are from different branches of the cocktail tree and shouldn't be discussed together. Again, we get it. So why do I keep replying? I guess it's because I think tying the phrase "I don't see a lot of differences here" to a fundamental misunderstanding of mixology seems like a cheap shot and pushing intellectual content where none really exists.

←

What really gets me about this video is that he presents himself as some kind of authority: "I had a theory, looked through the books, confirmed it, and now I offer my proven (by Brad's manhattan no less) theory to you, the viewer of my video." This isn't really the subtext of the piece, b/c he pretty much says that before he proudly (non-generous reading: smugly) walks off screen to enjoy his well-deserved drink.

Its the blind leading the blind. Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he should talk to or what books he should read to learn how to mix a drink. He could have read the Beverages and Libations forum here for a couple of hours and had a firm foundation to start learning for himself or at the very least who in New York he should talk to.

[Alcuin]

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.

←

Yeah, and on every one of those shows, I always get a kick out of watching the chefs roll their eyes when Bittman does it "his way."

←

While I'm not defending Bittman's cocktail foray, this is not an accurate statement about his tv show "How to Cook Everything" or "The Best Food in the World". It's clear that he has a good rapport with the chefs and they generally respect his dishes and goal. Not all of his dishes hit. But I've never seen a chef "roll his eyes," act disrespectfully, or express dislike of a dish in anything other than a friendly and constructive manner.

←

Watch Jean Georges snatch the quail or chicken away from Bittman again - sure, it's friendly, but it's also hey, dude, you have no clue what you're doing, give me that knife before you hurt yourself. No disrespect, we're all friends. Same thing we're doing here.

←

I remember watching one of these episodes in which a chef (can't remember who) makes steak tartare and Bittman "modifies" it by chopping some tenderloin, seasoning it, pressing it into a patty and making a burger. I saw that years ago, but even now I recall some eye-rolling going on.

Was his tenderloin burger good? Almost definitely. Was it steak tartare? No.

Sometimes I like what he presents (I'm going to try my hand at paletas because of his previous article) but sometimes he really misses the mark.

Edited to remove an "s"

Edited June 26, 2008 by Alcuin (log)

[Dave the Cook]

Assignment: listen to this audio story from NPR, which aired today.

Compare and contrast.

[lostmyshape]

Assignment: listen to this audio story from NPR, which aired today.

←

ha! how it should be done. makes bittman's piece look like high school newspaper club.

wow... i think this is the first flame war i've ever seen at egullet! well done all. no internet b-board is complete without a little fire.

in all seriousness, i think we all wish mr. bittman well, but he's not doing any favors to himself or to the betterment of cocktails with this video. i think most of us are balking at this because it's that type of attitude that makes it impossible to get a good cocktail at 90% of the bars out there. plus it's just bad reportage. ugh... enough with this.

[slkinsey]

This is more of a historical piece than a "how to make cocktails" piece, of course. And it rambles a bit. And I can't figure out whether Lu is in the studio or in another studio communicating by voice only. I'd say it's a good, but not great piece. Still, it's a lot better than Bittman's video.

What makes the NPR piece so much better is that the producers clearly thought something like: "New Orleans just made the Sazerac the official cocktail of the city. Let's do a piece on it. Okay... We should get a bartender on the show to tell us about it and walk us through making it. Probably ought to be one from New Orleans. Lu Brow is one the top cocktailian bartenders in New Orleans. Let's get her." I think that Chris McMillan might have been a slightly better choice, simply because of his pleasant loquacity. But it's hard to argue with picking Lu, and I'm happy they didn't ask Michael Lomonoco.

[Fat Guy]

Bittman has a very general response to his critics here:

Today’s Minimalist column, about cocktails, has already inspired the now expected crowd of people telling me that I’m doing everything — or at least some things — wrong. My point was this: There is no “wrong.” There are cocktails you make up yourself and there are classics. But even the classics are made in different ways by different people.

I think of Mark Bittman as the Tom Friedman of food: he's a great explainer. Usually he does a public service by this approach, and there are few people in the world who can digest and synthesize information so effectively. But once in awhile he's so glib that he jumps right off the intellectual cliff.

[Chris Amirault]

Well, that's a pretty interesting interpretation of his critics and an example of the fundamental problem. I can buy "There are lots of rights," but it's downright bizarre to say, "There is no 'wrong.'"

Perhaps tonight we can all toast to this principle by raising some Not-Wrong Margaritas (2 oz tequila, 1/2 oz simple syrup, dash Grey Poupon mustard, two dozen egg whites, with a garlic powder & cardoon garnish). Don't forget the salted rim.

[lostmyshape]

Not-Wrong Margaritas

(2 oz tequila, 1/2 oz simple syrup, dash Grey Poupon mustard, two dozen egg whites, with a garlic powder & cardoon garnish).

Don't forget the salted rim.

←

stirred... had 2 of these last night. sooo refreshing on a hot and humid summer night.

Edited June 27, 2008 by lostmyshape (log)

[eje]

Not-Wrong Margaritas

(2 oz tequila, 1/2 oz simple syrup, dash Grey Poupon mustard, two dozen egg whites, with a garlic powder & cardoon garnish).

Don't forget the salted rim.

←

Garlic salt, nah, cardoon, nah, dijon mustard or mustard powder though, hmmm...

[freshherbs]

Bittman has a very general response to his critics here:

Today’s Minimalist column, about cocktails, has already inspired the now expected crowd of people telling me that I’m doing everything — or at least some things — wrong. My point was this: There is no “wrong.” There are cocktails you make up yourself and there are classics. But even the classics are made in different ways by different people.

I think of Mark Bittman as the Tom Friedman of food: he's a great explainer. Usually he does a public service by this approach, and there are few people in the world who can digest and synthesize information so effectively. But once in awhile he's so glib that he jumps right off the intellectual cliff.

←

excuse my ignorance, but anyone know who Pete Confalone is? he was referenced in Bittman's response...

[Troy Sidle]

Bittman has a very general response to his critics here:

Today’s Minimalist column, about cocktails, has already inspired the now expected crowd of people telling me that I’m doing everything — or at least some things — wrong. My point was this: There is no “wrong.” There are cocktails you make up yourself and there are classics. But even the classics are made in different ways by different people.

I think of Mark Bittman as the Tom Friedman of food: he's a great explainer. Usually he does a public service by this approach, and there are few people in the world who can digest and synthesize information so effectively. But once in awhile he's so glib that he jumps right off the intellectual cliff.

←

excuse my ignorance, but anyone know who Pete Confalone is? he was referenced in Bittman's response...

←

I've never heard of him. Where does he work? Bittman says he's a great bartender, but that doesn't necessarily qualify him as an authority.