The Fat Duck 2007

Laibach · May 4, 2007

Sounds very familiar....

Jon Tseng · May 4, 2007

A different view...
http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?sect...ault.asp?site=1

One point the author makes is interesting: The food tends to lack crunch/crispness (hence the rant about everything being "wobbly").

This is a chronic problem I find with a lot of molecular gastronomy places - because of all the low temp-stuff you're giving away in terms of texture. Even if you blast stuff with a blowtorch at the end to brown it off you don't get the texture of a really nicely done bit of crackling.

J

PS As an aside has anyone figured out whats so great about seashore yet? If strikes me as a perfectly good composite seafood dish, bit of "sand" for crunch and textural variation. Basically a tarted up fish stew. Apart from the headphone thing it doesn't seem that much different from a luxury seafood stir-fry/hotpot you can get in most decent Chinese places (although obviously the flavouring will be different and its all probably been sous-vided rather than stir-fried).

Have been watching the press coverage of this with slight bemusement. Emperors new clothes anybody?

RDB · May 4, 2007

A different view...
http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?sect...ault.asp?site=1
If the above does not work go to www.chiswickw4.com and the Forum section
←

......if Gwyneth finds out he has been eating fish and meat at the Fat Duck, she'll hit the roof :biggrin:

eje · May 4, 2007

[...]
PS As an aside has anyone figured out whats so great about seashore yet? If strikes me as a perfectly good composite seafood dish, bit of "sand" for crunch and textural variation. Basically a tarted up fish stew. Apart from the headphone thing it doesn't seem that much different from a luxury seafood stir-fry/hotpot you can get in most decent Chinese places (although obviously the flavouring will be different and its all probably been sous-vided rather than stir-fried).
Have been watching the press coverage of this with slight bemusement. Emperors new clothes anybody?
←

Sound of the Sea is a perfectly fine dish. Can't say I really see the point of making a big deal out of it or the iPod.

Is it the first step towards dinners with something similar to those audio museum tours? "As your server approaches with the cheese cart, press 2 on your personal audio device." Sounds of the farm and happy cows mooing.

Magnus Lindgren · May 7, 2007

A different view...
http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?sect...ault.asp?site=1
One point the author makes is interesting: The food tends to lack crunch/crispness (hence the rant about everything being "wobbly").
This is a chronic problem I find with a lot of molecular gastronomy places - because of all the low temp-stuff you're giving away in terms of texture. Even if you blast stuff with a blowtorch at the end to brown it off you don't get the texture of a really nicely done bit of crackling.
J
PS As an aside has anyone figured out whats so great about seashore yet? If strikes me as a perfectly good composite seafood dish, bit of "sand" for crunch and textural variation. Basically a tarted up fish stew. Apart from the headphone thing it doesn't seem that much different from a luxury seafood stir-fry/hotpot you can get in most decent Chinese places (although obviously the flavouring will be different and its all probably been sous-vided rather than stir-fried).
Have been watching the press coverage of this with slight bemusement. Emperors new clothes anybody?
←

Jon always good to here your opinions.

for the texture bit i agree that sous vide itself does not ecourage maillard reactions (browning) of the meat or fish in question but you can always brown afterwards in a pan (not just with a blowtorch) so the same effect on the outside is achieved as from a normal cooking process.

As for "the sound of the sea" or " tarted up fish stew"

the idea is to itroduce the customer to the less known flavours from the sea as: Hijiki,razor clams, abalone,samphire and pickled letuce de mer. and also the whole concept of sand to left followed by seaweed, crusteacans and last with the sea (oyster beverage).its now also presented on a transparent glass board with real sand underneath the dish.SOS is together with the quail dish the first step of hestons sensorial experience.

emperors new clothes ? come and judge for yourself Jon instead of listen to bloggers (if anyone wonders bloggers is the kind of people that dont care if they destroy the dining experience of the other customers by constantly rigging up and down their cameras and taking photos like it was an olympic opening ceremony)

And last please Jon and everyone stop the use of the term molecular gastronomy it is silly, inaccurate and created by media and it sounds like cooking its not cooking anymore. Wich it is ,more now than ever becouse we chefs have learnt to understand the science behind cooking. We areat the start of a new era but please not mulecular gastronomy. If you dont believe me look at the word "gastro pub" where it stands today.

/Maglin

Corinna Dunne · May 7, 2007

And last please Jon and everyone stop the use of the term molecular gastronomy it is silly, inaccurate and created by media and it sounds like cooking its not cooking anymore. Wich it is ,more now than ever becouse we chefs have learnt to understand the science behind cooking. We areat the start of a new era but please not mulecular gastronomy. If you dont believe me look at the word "gastro pub" where it stands today.
/Maglin
←

Is "new cookery" the accepted term?

docsconz · May 7, 2007

And last please Jon and everyone stop the use of the term molecular gastronomy it is silly, inaccurate and created by media and it sounds like cooking its not cooking anymore. Wich it is ,more now than ever becouse we chefs have learnt to understand the science behind cooking. We areat the start of a new era but please not mulecular gastronomy. If you dont believe me look at the word "gastro pub" where it stands today.
/Maglin
←
Is "new cookery" the accepted term?
←

I don't believe that there is a universally accepted term, but at least molecular gastronomy appears to be universally rejected - at least by the chefs themselves who are doing the work. That is not to say that science has been thrown out of the kitchen. Far from it. Instead it is a means to an end rather than the end itself which the term "molecular gastronomy" implies.

Zoticus · May 7, 2007

emperors new clothes ? come and judge for yourself Jon instead of listen to bloggers (if anyone wonders bloggers is the kind of people that dont care if they destroy the dining experience of the other customers by constantly rigging up and down their cameras and taking photos like it was an olympic opening ceremony)
←

I haven't had the pleasure of receiving sounds of the sea through my sense organs, but if one could only comment on it after first hand experience, why is it that HB's PR juggernaut has had this dish in every publication on the planet? You can't, reasonably, use PR and then whinge that everyone is talking about it, after all that's what PR is.

And last please Jon and everyone stop the use of the term molecular gastronomy it is silly, inaccurate and created by media and it sounds like cooking its not cooking anymore. Wich it is ,more now than ever becouse we chefs have learnt to understand the science behind cooking. We areat the start of a new era but please not mulecular gastronomy. If you dont believe me look at the word "gastro pub" where it stands today.

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Before HB got hold of the term 'molecular gastronomy' it was probably known to about half a dozen. Subsequently it became his PR mantra. Now he doesn't like it any more -- fair enough, but don't blame the media.

Regarding 'the start of a new era', well time will tell. I only hope that chefs remember that they're in the leisure industry, and not finding a cure for cancer. Whether you have a lab or not, you're still in the same game as Macdonalds, and about as close to real science as Mystic Meg.

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

emperors new clothes ? come and judge for yourself Jon instead of listen to bloggers (if anyone wonders bloggers is the kind of people that dont care if they destroy the dining experience of the other customers by constantly rigging up and down their cameras and taking photos like it was an olympic opening ceremony)

It used to be that it was only weird and significant specialities - Tour d'Argent's scrunched duck for example - that were distinctive enough to be discussed in absentia. The interesting thing about Heston, Adria and the molecular brigade is the way that their dishes are regularly spoken about or opined on by those who've never tasted them.

Stop a passer by in the street and, if they're awake enough to know who Ramsey and Blumenthal are, they'll be able to mention a Fat Duck dish. They won't be able to name a single distinctive idea of Gordon's.

This has been the marketing genius of molecular gastronomy - breaking the inconvenient link between experiencing the food and talking about it.

I would argue that the irritating twats with cameras are more than a little responsible for some of Heston's success.

And last please Jon and everyone stop the use of the term molecular gastronomy...

No! I will go on using the term 'molecular gastronomy' for the same reason I use the term '"Dr" Gillian McKeith'.

People in the public eye who use a particular means to attract attention to themselves can't be allowed to drop it conveniently or deny it when it suits them.

...it is silly, inaccurate and created by media and it sounds like cooking its not cooking anymore. Wich it is ,more now than ever becouse we chefs have learnt to understand the science behind cooking. We areat the start of a new era but please not mulecular gastronomy. If you dont believe me look at the word "gastro pub" where it stands today.
/Maglin
←

It is undeniably silly and inaccurate but it wasn't 'created by the media'. It was co-opted by Adria, Blumenthal and others and used to market themselves.

Through their own self-promotion, the Molecular crew have made MG a public phenomenon. No matter how much they want to bury it or redefine it, MG now means 'expensive food with stupid science tricks' to the masses. If Heston wants to shed MG he can't wish it away or attempt to airbrush it out of existence. If he wants the public to accept him as the future of food the last thing he should be doing is pratting around with audio cues, half-baked NLP parlour tricks and yet another highly publicised comedy signature dish.

The term Gastro-Pub, is used today by any customer referring to a pub with decent food. It's become common usage. The only people trying to deny that are those running gastro-pubs with pretentions to something better. The only way to lose the tag you've created is to do something different.

Heston has the same problem. He can deny it all he likes but in the public eye he's not just tainted with MG he's been positively hosed with it. Heston will be the face of the "New Cookery' when he does something the public can perceive as new cookery.

Corinna Dunne · May 8, 2007

Heston has the same problem. He can deny it all he likes but in the public eye he's not just tainted with MG he's been positively hosed with it. Heston will be the face of the "New Cookery' when he does something the public can perceive as new cookery.
←

Hmmm... the third way

"Manifesto Cookery" perhaps?

docsconz · May 8, 2007

It is undeniably silly and inaccurate but it wasn't 'created by the media'. It was co-opted by Adria, Blumenthal and others and used to market themselves.
←

Perhaps Blumenthal used the term, but show me an instance where Adria did. I don't see it in any of his books or elsewhere, other than his rejecting the label. Of course you are free to call it whatever you want. :smile:

Gabe Q · May 8, 2007

Doc is right though. I have never read anywhere that Ferran or Albert Adria use the termn "molecular gastronomy". The only chef that I think I've directly heard refering to his cooking as that is Wylie Dufresne in an interview and Sam Mason mentions it in his website. Although Wylie also refers to his cooking as "new american".

It's funny how these labels work. It is just how it is with music. Someone comes up with something new and there is a cult following of it. Then it becomes bigger and the whole lot of imitators come along and then the originators want to distance themselves from it as much as possible and deny ever being a part of it. In the end I don't think anyone will ever come up with a universally used term so "molecular gastronomy" will probably stay.

Still I support Magnus on his arguments as I have been at The Fat Duck and think Heston is one of the true pioneers.

Corinna Dunne · May 8, 2007

Here's a piece about “the science of deliciousness” (Observer December 06):

Blumenthal, famed for the 18-course tasting menus he serves at the acclaimed Fat Duck at Bray in Berkshire, suggests that he, Adria and Keller have been misinterpreted: 'There are people out there who are completely missing the point.'
Three crucial principles of cookery are spelled out in the statement: excellence, openness and integrity. 'We do not pursue novelty for its own sake,' it reads. The emphasis, in other words, should be on quality ingredients handled with sophistication, but with due respect to traditional methods.

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

Rather than get into a whelter of Jesuitical debate about whether or not Adria (a Spanish speaker) ever uttered the words 'Molecular Gastronomy' in public hearing, can we cut straight to the chase?

Is there anyone here who's seriously asserting that Adria had nothing to do with Molecular Gastronomy?

I mean I can see the business sense in Blumenthal trying to rewrite history I'm surprised to see sensible foodies getting caught up in PR revisionism.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Tim Hayward (log)

docsconz · May 8, 2007

Rather than get into a whelter of Jesuitical debate about whether or not Adria (a Spanish speaker) ever uttered the words 'Molecular Gastronomy' in public hearing, can we cut straight to the chase?
Is there anyone here who's seriously asserting that Adria had nothing to do with Molecular Gastronomy?
I mean I can see the business sense in Blumenthal trying to rewrite history I'm surprised to see sensible foodies getting caught up in PR revisionism.
←

Of course he had plenty to do with the kind of cooking that the term "Molecular Gastronomy" purports to describe. What he didn't have anything to do with is the term "Molecular Gastronomy" itself, which you claimed he co-opted and used for marketing purposes. There is simply no evidence for the assertion that you made. He was very quick to distance himself from that term as it became the popular one used for a style of creative cooking. This does not mean that Adria (or Blumenthal) reject science in the kitchen. What it means is that science is a tool and not an end in itself as the term "Molecular Gastronomy" would imply.

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

Of course he had plenty to do with the kind of cooking that the term "Molecular Gastronomy" purports to describe. What he didn't have anything to do with is the term "Molecular Gastronomy" itself, which you claimed he co-opted and used for marketing purposes. There is simply no evidence for the assertion that you made. He was very quick to distance himself from that term as it became the popular one used for a style of creative cooking.
←

Point taken. And one could argue that Heston wasn't quite as quick to reinvent himself.

But my original point stands. Both men have risen to fame in a world outside of the tiny circle of their own customers. They have done so by either creating, contributing to, fomenting or even just going along for the ride with the convenient tag of 'Molecular Gastronomy'.

Neither of them now agrees with the public interpretation of MG but, as far as the public are concerned it's set in stone and neither of them have the power to change it.

There have been very few grand 'movements' in the history of food and anything which grows fast as a result of fashion or hype is certain to crash with greater force. There may be long lasting benefits - nouvelle cuisine left us with a better understanding of vegetables, plating and big crockery, the gastropub boom has left us with decent food in pubs, MG will leave us with a better understanding of science in the kitchen. But each of the fashionable movements which brought these advantages are now an embarrassment.

If Heston really wants to cook amazing food, that will bring back memories and evoke feelings, if he really wants to use science in the kitchen to please diners, if he really wants to put the final nail in the coffin of MG, why the hell doesn't he open a steak-house for a couple of years?

If, on the other hand, he's happy catering to that band of foodies who've seen the pictures but have yet to make the pilgrimage, then he needs to keep the theme park open as long as he can wring cash out of it and quit winging about being seen as a comedy MG wizard.

offcentre · May 8, 2007

wtf is wrong with a term that means the application of science to the art of cooking. I can't see that it is silly or inaccurate. It may well be a term the media have adopted (they didn't invent the term) but it gives meaning to what these chefs ARE doing.

If this term did not exist, and reports emerged of HB cooking a steak for 48 hours at 50 degrees or whatever the hell he does, most laypeople wouldn't go within 50 miles of the place.

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

If this term did not exist, and reports emerged of HB cooking a steak for 48 hours at 50 degrees or whatever the hell he does, most laypeople wouldn't go within 50 miles of the place.
←

If a steak cooked like that tasted markedly better than a regular one, people would come and eat it.

If it's debateable, foodies will come and try it.

If it's not, but people are trying it because of the weird way you've cooked it they you are a Molecular Gastronaut, trading on evanescent fashion.

Zoticus · May 8, 2007

It is undeniably silly and inaccurate but it wasn't 'created by the media'. It was co-opted by Adria, Blumenthal and others and used to market themselves.
←
show me an instance where Adria did. I don't see it in any of his books or elsewhere, other than his rejecting the label.
←

Ferran Adria (1997) Los Secretos de El Bulli, p.33:

In a chapter entitled 'Is there anything left to discover? -- Physics & Chemistry', Adria describes his first encounter with Herve This on a course on Molecular Gastronomy run by the Fundacion Escoffier, and says, "I can affirm that thanks to this encounter my style could follow a new direction ... soon some of the ideas that followed from this conference, such as foams, became great successes at El Bulli."..

Zoticus · May 8, 2007

Here's a piece about “the science of deliciousness” (Observer December 06):
Blumenthal, famed for the 18-course tasting menus he serves at the acclaimed Fat Duck at Bray in Berkshire, suggests that he, Adria and Keller have been misinterpreted: 'There are people out there who are completely missing the point.'
Three crucial principles of cookery are spelled out in the statement: excellence, openness and integrity. 'We do not pursue novelty for its own sake,' it reads. The emphasis, in other words, should be on quality ingredients handled with sophistication, but with due respect to traditional methods.
←

Here's the piece from which your piece was cribbed:

Manifesto

The sheer pomposity, and absolute lack of necessity, of this 'international agenda for great cooking' is breathtaking.

RDB · May 8, 2007

That manifesto to me is very similar to what a lot of the art movements in the 20th century did, e.g. Futurism, Dada, Surrealism etc. Whereby the leading protagonists got together to lay down the philosophy of the movement and what it was trying to create, usually set against global or political unrest. Maybe the aims and climate differ when the purpose or goal is creating food. Often as these movements got more famous and popular many of the key figures wanted to distance themselves from the movements name, what can be more frustrating to an artist than being 'labelled' or 'pigeon holed'. Unfortunately history shows us that labels stick.

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

Ferran Adria (1997) Los Secretos de El Bulli, p.33:
In a chapter entitled 'Is there anything left to discover? -- Physics & Chemistry', Adria describes his first encounter with Herve This on a course on Molecular Gastronomy run by the Fundacion Escoffier, and says, "I can affirm that thanks to this encounter my style could follow a new direction ... soon some of the ideas that followed from this conference, such as foams, became great successes at El Bulli."..
←

And Herve This (2002) Molecular Gastronomy : Exploring the Science of Flavour, p.149

In a chapter entitled 'Foams', This tips his hat to his old chum Ferran. Foams - low in fat because they are essentially composed of air - first came to prominence with the rise of Nouvelle Cuisine in France in teh 1960s and then gained broader popularity as a consequence of growing interest in lighter foods on both sides of the Atlantic. Today, with the advent of molecular gastronomy and, in particular, the fame of the Spanish chef Ferran Adria, they are very fashionable amongst gourmets".

Aaaaaah, Bless!

Ferran and Herve,

Sitting in a tree....

Edited May 8, 2007 by Tim Hayward (log)

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

That manifesto to me is very similar to what a lot of the art movements in the 20th century did, e.g. Futurism, Dada, Surrealism etc. Whereby the leading protagonists got together to lay down the philosophy of the movement and what it was trying to create, usually set against global or political unrest. Maybe the aims and climate differ when the purpose or goal is creating food. Often as these movements got more famous and popular many of the key figures wanted to distance themselves from the movements name, what can be more frustrating to an artist than being 'labelled' or 'pigeon holed'. Unfortunately history shows us that labels stick.
←

And how much more so when, rather than being part of a broad movement, an individual wraps himself entirely in his own brand of it.

When people like for example Dali or Kerouac became locked so tightly (and remuneratively) into a personal style they were easier for history to marginalise. There was little development over the body of their work because they were victims of the popular success of their personal schtick.

What if Adria and Blumenthal are the Dali and Kerouac of culinary history? Idolised by adolescent rebels but largely dismissed as genre cults by those with longer memories?

Edited May 8, 2007 by Tim Hayward (log)

Tim Hayward · May 8, 2007

Here's a piece about “the science of deliciousness” (Observer December 06):
Blumenthal, famed for the 18-course tasting menus he serves at the acclaimed Fat Duck at Bray in Berkshire, suggests that he, Adria and Keller have been misinterpreted: 'There are people out there who are completely missing the point.'
Three crucial principles of cookery are spelled out in the statement: excellence, openness and integrity. 'We do not pursue novelty for its own sake,' it reads. The emphasis, in other words, should be on quality ingredients handled with sophistication, but with due respect to traditional methods.
←

So we misinterpreted Molecular Gastronomy and these guys, the Spaniard, the American, the Brit are all about cooking in their individual traditions. They have nothing in common but excellence, openness and integrity?

Well nothing except a profound interest in the work of the fourth signatory, Harold McGee.

There's something surreal about three cooks...cooks for chrissake, not artists or philosophers, making a joint public statement that they are not in the same gang. It's like some sort of Python sketch.

Actually, they are all in the same gang - recovering Molecular Gastronauts and MG deniers.

Zoticus · May 8, 2007

There's something surreal about three cooks...cooks for chrissake, not artists or philosophers, making a joint public statement that they are not in the same gang. It's like some sort of Python sketch.
←

There also something very irritating about it. I mean, three chefs at the top of their game, coining it in, publishing a hissy statement that they're being misunderstood. What on earth is their problem? Do they honestly believe that they are above criticism, and truly merit universal adoration?

Sign In

The Fat Duck 2007

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members