The Fat Duck 2007

[RDB]

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?

It is the culinary equivalent of 'adolescent rebels', whereby a great deal of people are aspiring to be a molecular gastromonist. All you need to do is put a foam here or a savoury ice cream there and hey presto you to could be one. Mark my words Mc Donalds will be doing deconstructed Big Mac's with french fry foam pretty soon.

So again its not much good for credibility to be associated with something that everyone wants to be part of. Or maybe feeling annoyed that your style of cooking has been so misunderstood, hence the need for a manifesto........

[docsconz]

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."..

←

You have me on a technicality, but it only referred to the course called "Molecular Gastronomy." Adria did not use the term as a description of his cuisine. I also did not mean to imply or imply that Adria or presumably Blumenthal have ever rejected the work or contributions of This or McGee, which they very much still embrace. They just don't embrace the term. Ibelieve though may be mistaken that the term comes from This.

[eje]

[...]

(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)

[...]

←

Well, I believe all you would have to do is instigate a no camera, (and while you're at it no cell phone,) policy, and Bob's your uncle, if it's that important to yourself and Mr. Blumenthal.

Sure, some people might try to sneak in Minox cameras, and the like, to document the delicate proceedings; but, the more blatant violations could be eradicated without much effort on the restaurant's part.

Personally, while I find the use of flash distracting, I don't really think restaurant photography is that big a deal, as long as the photographer is at least trying to be discreet. It is mostly the photographer's own dining experience which is being "destroyed" by making the effort to document it with pictures.

[RDB]

I have often wondered if chefs have any copyright* over photos being taken of their dishes and being published on food websites or blogs. For example could Heston ask for photos of his dishes on here to be removed? Could it get to that stage?

* I am totally naive on copyright laws

[Magnus Lindgren]

I have often wondered if chefs have any copyright* over photos being taken of their dishes and being published on food websites or blogs. For example could Heston ask for photos of his dishes on here to be removed? Could it get to that stage?

* I am totally naive on copyright laws

←

no copyright on photos unfortunatly that is the problem, the net is overcrowded with badly taken photos wich u have no control over as a chef .

i would never have guessed this MG subject would stir it up thatt much. It seems that most of you people support continued usage of the term.

And for Ferrans manifesto i believe it had nothing to do with molucelar gastronomy its just his (and the rest of the spanish cooking mafia) thoughs about the future I agree it could ibe seen as a bit pretentious but at the time it was neccessary to state and correct missconsumptions about his work so i belive he did the right thing.

One aspect people tend to forget when speaking about these guys is the comitment to simple cooking and educating people about basic stuff. Heston has probably spent more time on trying to bring up the english food heritage with the fat duck and The hinds Head. the perfection series (second one under production). than trying to push more limits, for him black olive and leather is just two flavour molecules that goes together just as well as tomato and basil no diffrent.

[docsconz]

One aspect people tend  to forget when speaking about these guys is the comitment to simple cooking and educating people about basic  stuff. Heston has probably spent more time  on trying to bring up the english food heritage with the fat duck and The hinds Head. the perfection series (second one under production). than trying to push more limits, for him  black olive and leather is just two flavour molecules that goes together just as well as tomato and basil no diffrent.

←

People have a tendency to see one thing and fixate on that for better or worse.

[Zoticus]

Brian Sewell on the FD: takes one to know one.

[Tim Hayward]

Brian Sewell on the FD: takes one to know one.

←

...Darfur, Congo, Abyssinia, the poor of Pakistan, the slave donkeys of the east and Africa, and the rescue home from which my three dogs came - all tug at my conscience.

Twat.

[RDB]

Is old BS seeing the whole thing as pretentious nonsense, and allluding to the Nashian poetic adage ' Here's a good rule of thumb. Too clever is dumb'????

Maybe Heston should take some solace that he liked his lamb chops, bread and butter and coffee

[Andy Lynes]

And last please Jon and everyone  stop the use of the term molecular gastronomy it is silly,  inaccurate and created by media 

←

"My next port of call was Oxford University and Nicholas Kurti. Nicholas was the head of Physics at the University and the person who coined the phrase “Molecular Gastronomy”, some 35 years ago."

Heston Blumenthal, The Fat Duck website: click here

[olicollett]

Brian Sewell on the FD: takes one to know one.

←

...Darfur, Congo, Abyssinia, the poor of Pakistan, the slave donkeys of the east and Africa, and the rescue home from which my three dogs came - all tug at my conscience.

Twat.

←

Bit harsh, Brian Sewell is a massive, pretentious twat, to compare him to other twats is somewhat offensive imo.

I actually cannot read through Sewell's diatribe without closing the page after a brain melt. But anyway, he is an art critic after all. Quite what he is doing reviewing food is beyond me.

edit:

As the Riesling I chose was, at £72, one of the least expensive possibilities in the formidably wide-ranging lists, I imagine that an unguarded pair of merry diners following the Fat Duck's promptings could easily tot up enough hundreds to get the bill within reach of £1,000 - easy as pie for a party of four

Has this chap ever eaten at a restaurant like this before?

Besides, having a quick browse of their wine list of their website, i can a fair few bottles for under £50, so either the website is wrong or his definition of "least expensive" is somewhat misleading..

Edited May 11, 2007 by olicollett (log)

[Andy Lynes]

I rather liked the conceit of the piece, even though it was a rather obvious one, and found it a real hoot. I'd like to read more restaurant reviews by Mr Sewell.

[Jon Tseng]

Better than Giles Coran (so at least I read it)

J

PS And remember Brian Sewell isn't nearly as posh as the airs and graces he likes to put on. He is a Habs boy* after all (alma mater of Ali G, David Baddiel, Matt Lucas, yours truly and, of course, the esteemed Mr Jay Rayner)

* Class-speak for north london upwardly-mobile immigrant stock.

[muichoi]

Why does everyone order the 'tasting menu' here? it's always been the poorly informed tourists' choice in serious restaurants, and the FD is no different.

[Zoticus]

Why does everyone order the 'tasting menu' here? it's always been the poorly informed tourists' choice in serious restaurants, and the FD is no different.

←

Because, for most, it's a one-off.

Anyway, even if it is 'the poorly informed tourists' choice', shouldn't it still be sublime?

[ajnicholls]

The dishes the Fat Duck is famous for are all on the tasting menu. It's the reason why the vast majority of people know about and visit the restaurant.

Saying that tasting menus are the poorly informed tourist's choice is, frankly, bollocks.

[Jon Tseng]

Saying that tasting menus are the poorly informed tourist's choice is, frankly, bollocks.

←

In part, I disagree. Tasting menus perform different tasks in different restaurant. Often I have found they are not the great choice they appear to be.

Often, particularly in big-name restaurants, the tasting menu has a tendancy to veer towards the formulaic. Its the easy option for the one-time diner who doesn't know what to get and just wants the "greatest hits".

What you often end up, rather than the chef highlighting what hes best at (which si the ideal) is a sort of cooking-by-numbers exercise which lacks soul but (because of the premium pricing attached to most degustations*) keep the ledger ticking over. I find it interesting that the "bigger-name" restaurants I go to, the higher proportion of the dining room takes the degustation.

I think that is in part with what was meantby the comment about tasting menu being tourists choice. To a great extent I agree.

--------------

The Fat Duck is the most obvious example. Another one is Gordon Ramsays where the degustation is almost always amuse + foie gras preparation (hot or cold) + either a scallop dish or the lobster/langoustine ravioli + a white fish preparation (sea bass or turbot) + chocie between canon of cornish lamb or beef fillet + pre-desert (normaly yoghurt + fruit compote) + desert + petit fours. The structure of the menu has remain completely unchanged and uninspiring or as long as I can remember. The reasons are clear - that's what the "tourists" (and pls Nb I use the term in speech marks) want - something relatively flashy but uncontroversial which will let you say you've "done" the GR degustation experience. At the end of the day, that's what sells.

Of course there are exceptions which prove the rule - Pierre Gagnaire is the obvious one that springs to mind, and in different restaurants degustations often have a slightly different emphasis (particularly where you only get 4-5 courses rather than 8-10, basically taking some of the carte dishes and serving then en demi - a format I much prefer).

--------------

Nonetheless my overwhelming advice to anyone hitting a "destination" restaurant and comtemplating the tasting menu is: stop a moment a think again. You will often get an enormously more satisfying experience by sticking with the carte.

Part of the reasons "tourists" (speech marks!) often go for the tasting menu is that its seen as the "premium" option ("if we're only here once, might as well make the most of it..."). In my experience however you're paying for choice and more dishes, not for better (or in aggregate more) food.

A la carte will often get you better integrated dishes which aren't gone in two bites before they're arrived. You generally get as much food as a tasting menu (where portions can be stingy - Manoir Aux Quat Saisons is a notable offender in my experience) and once you've thrown in amuse-bouches, canapes, pre-deserts and petit fours you're probably up to 5-6 courses anyhow.

Worth considering next time...

J

* As an aside one thing I also notice is that in the UK taste menus are generally priced at a premium to the carte, particularly when the carte is itself done on a prixe-fixe for three courses basis. that premium is normally 10-15 quid. what is interesting is that in Paris (where a la carte prices at the **/*** level are an order of magnitude higher) the degustation is often the cheaper option to going a la carte.

[Jon Tseng]

The dishes the Fat Duck is famous for are all on the tasting menu. It's the reason why the vast majority of people know about and visit the restaurant.

←

As an aside, because the press coverage of FD revolves almost entirely around the degustation, it's worth asking the question:

Are these dishes on the tasting menu because are famous/good or famous/good because they are on the tasting menu?

I suspect the latter.

[Zoticus]

You're being a bit obtuse Jon.

The degustation menu at the FD is pushed because if pot roast pork etc. were all people were eating, then there would be nothing to talk about, and the FD would fall off the radar quicker than Joe Dolce. Apart from El Bulli, most tasting menus are drawn from the carte, but at the FD the tasting menu and the carte are in large part mutually exclusive.

Wondering why first time visitors to the FD choose the tasting menu is a bit like wondering why first time visitors to NY want to take a look at the Statue of Liberty.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Zoticus (log)

[muichoi]

Jon's reply puts my position far more eloquently than I can. It was Michel Roux of the neighbouring establishment who first alerted me to the fact that the kitchen far prefers to be challenged rather than churn out tasting menus on automatic, and that choosing a la carte is always the more interesting choice. Zoticus, your last sentence defines tourism precisely.

[Zoticus]

Zoticus, your last sentence defines tourism precisely.

←

There's not much point in arguing that eating at destination restaurants isn't a form a tourism. But what you seem to be suggesting is that a) there's something pejorative about tourism, and b) that tasting menus are a poor choice. Regarding a), you've said nothing and merely assumed that your view will be shared. Regarding b), you seem to be claiming that tasting menus are easier to produce than carte dishes, and, as a result of this, are therefore inferior. You have ignored the fact that in most cases tasting menus are drawn from the carte, and that, in the particular case of the FD, the tasting menu is distinct. In order to go beyond mere glibness, you will need to show that tourism is inherently bad; that the carte is more difficult to produce and that this difficulty correlates with better food; and, finally, demonstrate why a first time visitor to the FD would be acting in a more informed manner by not choosing the signature tasting option.

To reiterate, you have yet to provide any of the above, and until you do so in a satisfactory manner, ajnicholls' 'bollocks' evaluation stands.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Zoticus (log)

[ajnicholls]

I wish I could eat at the Fat Duck regularly enough to not be classed as a "tourist"! I've only been once - I live in Manchester and the trip cost about £250 per person after you factor in a hotel etc.

Going to the Fat Duck was somewhere I'd been extremely excited about, looking forward to and knew alot about. Although the ALC is supposed to be superb, I wanted to try the dishes that I'd read so much about, both here and in the press. I don't see why ordering the tasting menu makes me an inferior patron. And if it does, frankly, I don't care. From speaking to the maitre'd, he said around 90% of people order the tasting menu. Are we all wrong? The Fat Duck offers one of the most unique dining experiences anywhere in the world. The dishes that got the press coverage and likely the reason why it got 3 stars are down to the tasting menu.

Undoubtably, in some restaurants, the tasting/degustation/whatever pretentious name they come up for it, doesn't offer the best that the restaurant can do. However, in places like Hibiscus, where Claude Bosi changes his menu on a daily basis, none of which bar the foie gras ice cream, were on the ALC when I went, make ordering these things interesting and surprizing. I like not knowing what I'm getting every so often. Juniper in Altringham is another case in point, for providing an interesting, frequently changing, tasting menu.

As an aside, the Michelin guide was created to provide people with information about restaurants when they are travelling. 3* rating, to quote them "Exceptional cuisine and worth the journey". Therefore, if that's the reason why you go to a restaurant, doesn't that make us all "tourists"?

Adam

[Jon Tseng]

There's not much point in arguing that eating at destination restaurants isn't a form a tourism.  But what you seem to be suggesting is that a) there's something pejorative about tourism,

Regarding a), you've said nothing and merely assumed that your view will be shared.

I share the view that "tourism" is a perjorative term. Tourism in the sense we are talking about here is when people are there to say they've done it, rather than enjoying doing it in and of itself. Viz "I've done the Fat Duck", "I've done the tasting menu at Gordon Ramsays", "I've done the KFC outside Liverpool Street station" (bloody long clue there this lunchtime, but that's a different story).

Tourism in this respect is perjorative because people care less for the intrinsic value of the thing itself. On the whole they are not as interested in engaging with the restaurant - rather they sit and take it. And on the whole people don't go back - after all once you've "done" a restaurant why on earth would you ever want to go again!

That's an attitude which contrasts with some of my fond favourites in London - The Greenhouse, The Capital, Foliage, The Wolesley, Tom Aikens. Sure I've "done" them, had the degustation (if germane), but I still go back to see them cos I, er, enjoy the place for what it is - that is the what tourism is not, and that is why "tourism" is a perjorative term.

Now of course not every "tourist" falls under that definition. For every mindless hick who just wants to go to Paris, get their picture taken at the Eiffel Tower and see the Mona Lisa there is one who wants to engage with the city, understand the vibe and get under its skin. Nonetheless this definition of "tourism" is relevant, I would argue, more often than not.

and b) that tasting menus are a poor choice. Regarding a), you've said nothing and merely assumed that your view will be shared. Regarding b), you seem to be claiming that tasting menus are easier to produce than carte dishes, and, as a result of this, are therefore inferior.

I also share the view the view that tasting menus, in my experience, are generally less satisfying than a la carte. That's not because they are simpler or "easier to produce" (and if you apply a close reading to the thread, I don't think you'll find anyone suggesting they are). My disagreements, as I have outlined above, are with the format. I simply find that the portion size is too constraining, and no sooner are you starting to really enjoy a dish, then its gone. A lot of that is personal preference, but that's built on a fair amount of experience. Maybe its just me but I find that tasting menus infrequently live up to expectations.

The second argument against the tasting menu at the Fat Duck in particular is the lack of variation in the dishes. We've gone over this many times already (yes I know maybe the dishes have gotten "perfect" so why change them (nb Nico Ladenis typified this attitude), yes I know they do involve and lots of subtle changes do come through etc etc). One one point I would make is that stacked up against the new dishes which come through in the tasting menus of comparable ***s in France and Spain, the lack of change gives the appearance (pls note the italics!) of a lack of creativity.

You have ignored the fact that in most cases tasting menus are drawn from the carte, and that, in the particular case of the FD, the tasting menu is distinct.

I don't quite understand the argument about tasting menus being drawn from the carte (its late and I've still got lots of revision to do). Are you saying tasting menus aren't inferior to the carte because their often drawn form the carte? (which obviously doesn't make sense given you make such a hue and cry about the FD's dishes not coming off the carte) Or are you saying Fat Ducks dishes are better than the carte because they're not drawn from it? (are you opening a new line of argument that dishes on the carte are inferior to those on the tasting menu?)

One point I would make however is that I think you're wrong to characterise the Fat Ducks' tasting menu as sui generis and seperate from the carte. A lot of the dishes evolved from either the carte or the lunch menu, in my experience. I've had the green tea and lime mousse as a precursor to the carte, as is the mustard bloody ice cream with red cabbage bloody gazpacho. The pigeon and pastilla of pigeon which was on the tasting menu for many years was straight off of the carte, as was the cauliflower risotto which I had when I went for the tasting menu. The snail porridge was originally on the cheapo lunch set (sadly discontinued) long before it made it onto the tasting, and you'll note the best end of lamb is currently on both the carte and degustation. The bacon and egg ice cream also used to be on the carte.

It is very unusual, in my experience, to have a tasting menu entirely distinct form the carte. The only example which really springs to mind is Pierre Gagnaire, where he is at pains to stress how going a la carte and taking the tasting are deliberately different experiences.

That is not to say, please note, that I am casting aspersions over the quality of the cooking on the tasting menu at the Fat Duck. I have always found the standard of cooking both alc and tasting to be of the highest quality; in this respect the whole scientific/perfectionism thing is a definite benefit. i.e. its not that its a low-grade offering which is specifically meant for tourists, but because of the way the restaurant has developed it is increasingly being taken by tourists.

In order to go beyond mere glibness, you will need to show that tourism is inherently bad; that the carte is more difficult to produce and that this difficulty correlates with better food; and, finally, demonstrate why a first time visitor to the FD would be acting in a more informed manner by not choosing the signature tasting option.

In summary:

- Tourism bad: See above for why.

- Carte more difficult to produce: No one ever said it is. That question is a straw man.

- Difficult correlates to better food: See above - straw man.

- First time visitor would be better off with the carte: Haven't got a clue what a first time visitor would do better with. Personally a) I would say that on the whole I agree tasting menus in general are the poorly informed tourist's choice, and b) the more "destination" a restaurant the more this is often the case, c) however I wouldn't go so far as to say this definitely applies to the Fat Duck - there is an enormous amount on that menu that is both good and damn tasty but d) I do have reservations about how the tenor of the restaurant has evolved over the years.

To be honest though, the only point this whole debate proves is that I really should go back to the Fat Duck and have another crack at the tasting menu at some point...

J

Edited May 13, 2007 by Jon Tseng (log)

[Zoticus]

Tourism in the sense we are talking about here is when people are there to say they've done it, rather than enjoying doing it in and of itself.

←

Even if this were generally true, and I don't think it is, I don't see how it could be demonstrated to be true without resorting to the argument that people who don't set out to enjoy things like you aren't truly enjoying them. Furthermore, eating is a particular case, how one can not experience a meal, unless one doesn't actually eat it, is beyond me.

For every mindless hick who just wants to go to Paris, get their picture taken at the Eiffel Tower and see the Mona Lisa there is one who wants to engage with the city, understand the vibe and get under its skin.  Nonetheless this definition of "tourism" is relevant, I would argue, more often than not.

Wanting to see the Mona Lisa and the Eiffel tower, and wanting 'understand the vibe ...' are not mutually exclusive. Wanting to have the tasting menu at a destination restaurant, and having a deep interest in food are not mutually exclusive either.

I also share the view the view that tasting menus, in my experience, are generally less satisfying than a la carte...    I simply find that the portion size is too constraining, and no sooner are you starting to really enjoy a dish, then its gone.  A lot of that is personal preference, but that's built on a fair amount of experience. Maybe its just me but I find that tasting menus infrequently live up to expectations.

Can't argue with this, except to say that as an overview the tasting menu could have an orientational role to play on subsequent visits or even whether subsequent visits are necessary.

I don't quite understand the argument about tasting menus being drawn from the carte (its late and I've still got lots of revision to do).  Are you saying tasting menus aren't inferior to the carte because their often drawn form the carte? (which obviously doesn't make sense given you make such a hue and cry about the FD's dishes not coming off the carte)  Or are you saying Fat Ducks dishes are better than the carte because they're not drawn from it? (are you opening a new line of argument that dishes on the carte are inferior to those on the tasting menu?)

I'm saying that if a tasting menu is drawn form the carte then it's contradictory to claim that it is inferior to the carte. And in the case that it is distinct from the carte, then it is as reasonable a choice for the first time diner as anything from the carte, since unless one has an idea of what is good, there is no basis on which to make a decision over and above personal preference. Indeed, in this scenario, I would argue that choosing the tasting menu is the logical and informed choice since it seems unreasonable to suppose that what is emblematic of a restaurant should also be the worst choice.

One point I would make however is that I think you're wrong to characterise the Fat Ducks' tasting menu as sui generis and seperate from the carte.  A lot of the dishes evolved from either the carte or the lunch menu, in my experience.  I've had the green tea and lime mousse as a precursor to the carte, as is the mustard bloody ice cream with red cabbage bloody gazpacho.  The pigeon and pastilla of pigeon which was on the tasting menu for many years was straight off of the carte, as was the cauliflower risotto which I had when I went for the tasting menu.  The snail porridge was originally on the cheapo lunch set (sadly discontinued) long before it made it onto the tasting, and you'll note the best end of lamb is currently on both the carte and degustation.  The bacon and egg ice cream also used to be on the carte.

Yes, but it's not like this any more, and, even this were relevant, for the first time diner it's still the logical choice.

In summary:

- Tourism bad: See above for why.

At worst, 'tourism' is a neutral term.

- Carte more difficult to produce: No one ever said it is. That question is a straw man.

- Difficult correlates to better food: See above - straw man.

When muichoi says, 'the kitchen far prefers to be challenged rather than churn out tasting menus on automatic', I infer that 'challenge' implies some degree of difficulty not required to produce the tasting menu. Your charge of 'straw man' is unfounded, although perhaps muichoi would like to develop this point so that we may discuss it further.

Personally a) I would say that on the whole I agree tasting menus in general are the poorly informed tourist's choice

You can repeat this assertion until you're blue in the face, but repetition is not going to make it true. Indeed, you like to invoke the charge of setting up a straw man, but in formal terms the straw man in this argument is the poorly informed tourist.

[Corinna Dunne]

Changes are planned.

Heston Blumenthal recently said that the restaurant is going through a “period of transition”. Jan Moir (yes, she’s still around, you’ll find her here), interviewed him recently, click here.

At the moment, the Fat Duck is usually 95 per cent full and in a period of transition as it changes its à la carte menu from a modern classic French style to something that Blumenthal calls Historic British, following his long period of study with food historians at Hampton Court. I hope it means his horrible tobacco chocolates are off the menu, and perhaps the salmon poached in liquorice, too - but I know I am in the minority here.