Recipe names - do they matter?

[Anna N]

I recently came across a recipe called “Chicken in Yoghurt” and was immediately turned off as I pictured a bland, colourless mess resembling a dog’s dinner. The recipe is actually quite good and has a lot more going for it in both the taste and appearance departments than the name would suggest. On the other hand, a recipe called “Beef Cheeks, Seaweed, Oyster, Sprouts and Radish” (from the website British Larder) where the title is almost an ingredient list strikes me as ridiculous. How about you – do recipe names matter? Are you drawn in by a good name and turned off by a poor one? Any examples?

[Tri2Cook]

The name doesn't matter to me at all. I use the ingredients list to get an idea of what the dish is about.

[baroness]

Cutesy names give me a headache: veggie, sammie, etc.

I'm also suspicious of ones that include delicious, tasty, to-die-for, better-than-(whatever).

[David A. Goldfarb]

Shouldn't all recipes be named after eighteenth- and nineteenth-century aristocrats, military officers, opera composers and performers, and ballerinas?

[Chris Amirault]

I think that they do matter, but I can't figure out how. I've now twice made Paula Wolfert's "Lamb with Apples," a simple dish that is a revelation with good lamb. I resisted making the dish at first, I think, because of the simplicity of the name -- which is odd, given that I typically order food at new restaurants by choosing the simplest of names!

[ryansm]

I admit that cutesy names usually turn me off from recipes--I often won't read past the title. In my experience, most of the recipes with these names are no good and come from not-so-great sources (such as Rachael Ray: Why-the-Chicken-Crossed-the-Road Santa Fe-Tastic Tortilla Soup, My Oh Mahi, That's a Good Fish Taco, That's Shallota Flavor Spaghetti, Who Ya Callin' Chicken? Stuffed Sammie Pockets...yes, they're real). My (completely unproven) theory is that if you're spending that much time coming up with a "clever" name, you're compensating for something. The food should be able to stand for itself, no matter how dull the name. And I would never eat in a restaurant that had such titles on its menu.

[slkinsey]

Shouldn't all recipes be named after eighteenth- and nineteenth-century aristocrats, military officers, opera composers and performers, and ballerinas?

I use a similar rule when choosing bottled condiments. If it's named something like "Colonel Switherington's Pungent Crimean Elixir" -- I'm in!

[Anna N]

I think that they do matter, but I can't figure out how. I've now twice made Paula Wolfert's "Lamb with Apples," a simple dish that is a revelation with good lamb. I resisted making the dish at first, I think, because of the simplicity of the name -- which is odd, given that I typically order food at new restaurants by choosing the simplest of names!

Now you see I would pass over that recipe but only because of my preconceived notion that apple and lamb are not compatible. However, now I will go dig out Paula's book as soon as I can get to my bookcase and look that one up and likely make it!

[Moopheus]

I don't know how much titles "matter" but they might, in a cookbook, be revealing of the attitude of the author. Overly cutesy names are definitely suspect. As noted above, seems to suggest an overly hard sell of the recipe, in an annoyingly paternal/maternal way. Like we're children who wouldn't be interested in the recipe unless it's dressed up somehow. At the other end of the scale is the title that mentions practically the whole ingredient list down to the last spice: suggests overly fussy control freak. You wouldn't dare alter this, would you? I'm okay with short descriptive titles like "Chicken with Yogurt," or maybe "chicken with spiced yogurt," something that just gives the main points, in executive summary fashion, on the assumption that more details will follow in the recipe itself.

If the word "chocolate" is in there somewhere, that's good too.

[heidih]

I am pretty much ditto on Moopheus. Perhaps I am a bit cynical, but wordy titles put me off. I have gotten to the point where I will skim the recipe first to see if there is an unusual combination of ingredients, and then to see if the prep is something I have not done. That said, I am still a pushover for photos, so I always read the recipes where the photos interest me.

Edited December 4, 2009 by heidih
typo (log)

[jgm]

I think Rachel Ray's recipes are probably named to target them toward her audience - people who don't do a lot of cooking because they don't know much about it. The folksy names are likely designed to give them a bit more of a "user friendly" and less-daunting feel for inexperienced cooks. Personally, I'm not crazy about that, because I find it off-putting myself, but I've made a few of her recipes in the past and the ones I've tried have been pretty good. But then, I'm not really part of her target audience.

The New Yorker food issue had a story about "Spit Cake" that was certainly an unappetizing name; it turns out the cake is baked on a spit and repeatedly dunked back into the batter, so that when it's eventually sliced horizontally, rings are noticeable.

I think my attitude about recipe names is more dependent on where I find the recipe than anything else. It's probably an issue when producing a cookbook. It would seem to me that in a cookbook highlighting one region's food, such as Paula Wolfert's books, it would be important to retain authenticity, but one would also have to keep in mind the audience for whom it's written. Trying to introduce food from one country to residents of another country would require a certain amount of finesse.

The example of “Beef Cheeks, Seaweed, Oyster, Sprouts and Radish” (above) is, in my opinion, an example of good intentions gone bad. "Sauteed Beef Cheeks" or "Braised Beef Cheeks" would be more attractive to me, because they give information about the cooking method, which is often important to me.

[David Ross]

As a cook, I actually like the example of "Lamb with Apples." It's just the sort of reference to a dish that intrigues me and would lure me to consider looking at the recipe. I can easily see lambs grazing in an apple orchard in the late fall. (But I suppose by that time of year they really wouldn't be "lambs.") Once I delved into the recipe I would then decide if it's a dish I'd care to take on. And knowing that a recipe like "Lamb with Apples" came from a respected cook like Paula Wolfert would substantiate in my mind that it's a quality, tested recipe.

I regularly go to Andre Soltner's "Lutece" cookbook for traditional French recipes. A dish may sound as simple as "Frog's Legs," but I know that I can trust Chef Soltner to guide me through a classic preparation. Silly titles from a less-trusted source may not produce the same delicious end results.

But "Lamb with Apples" is about as far as I care to take creative liscense when it comes to recipe names. I'm quite bored with "Confit of Mountain Strawberries served on a Flaxseed Biscuit with Preserved Tayberry Coulis and Black Pepper."

Fewer words are much more seductive.

[David A. Goldfarb]

A couple of handy glossaries to many, but not nearly all, of those opaque names for classic French dishes, listing only the origin of the name, not the associated recipes. They seem to be the same in content, formatted in two different ways.--

http://www.creativecookingschool.com/ClassicalDishes.asp

http://www.fooduniversity.com/foodu/food_c/reference/Dish%20Name%20Origins/AgnesSorel.html

[Darienne]

Thanks David, that's a good start for those of us just learning our way around the massive confusion of cooking terminology.

[Baron d'Apcher]

Le Répertoire de la Cuisine offers tangible ingredient foundations for the anecdotal regional/historical suffixes to such classical recipe appellations.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I usually find the ingredients in Escoffier or Ranhofer's _Epicurean_, but there must be some book out there that explains the origins of the name along with the recipe.

Great blog, by the way, Baron. I like the pastry sarcophagus.

Edited December 6, 2009 by David A. Goldfarb (log)

[JAZ]

Two points:

Recipe names on menus matter more than recipe names in books. If I'm reading a cookbook, I can read the headnote, or at least see what the ingredients and instructions are to get an idea of the finished dish. On a restaurant menu, I either want a descriptive name or an explanation of what the dish is. If I saw "Lamb with Apples" on a menu and there wasn't a description of how the lamb was cooked, I'd think the restaurant did a bad job naming the dish. Whereas if it said "Lamb Shanks braised with Apples" I'd have a better idea of what to expect.

Second, when a chef uses a traditional or iconic name for a dish (e.g. Caesar salad, Waldorf salad, Beef Wellington, Steak Diane), the food I end up with should be recognizable as that dish. Don't put "Waldorf Salad" on the menu and give me a salad made from fennel, butternut squash and almonds. Sounds obvious, but chefs play fast and loose with traditional names all the time. For instance, I read in several places about chef Michael Symon's macaroni and cheese, which by all accounts is great. I'm always on the lookout for new macaroni and cheese recipes, so I looked it up. Imagine my surprise to find this recipe, with chicken, rigatoni and goat cheese. It might be a good dish, but it's not macaroni and cheese at all -- more like "Chicken Paprikash Goes to Italy (by way of a goat farm)."

[jaynesb]

I don't know how much titles "matter" but they might, in a cookbook, be revealing of the attitude of the author. Overly cutesy names are definitely suspect. As noted above, seems to suggest an overly hard sell of the recipe, in an annoyingly paternal/maternal way. Like we're children who wouldn't be interested in the recipe unless it's dressed up somehow. At the other end of the scale is the title that mentions practically the whole ingredient list down to the last spice: suggests overly fussy control freak. You wouldn't dare alter this, would you? I'm okay with short descriptive titles like "Chicken with Yogurt," or maybe "chicken with spiced yogurt," something that just gives the main points, in executive summary fashion, on the assumption that more details will follow in the recipe itself.

If the word "chocolate" is in there somewhere, that's good too.

I agree with Moopheus about the author's attitude. This definitely comes through when the book contains recipes by a single chef and/or restaurant. You do start to get an idea of the naming style.

On the other hand, it's a really different experience to be faced with a cookbook or website or web search result that contains recipes by different authors. In those cases, I find myself faced with a mix of recipes by authors I recognize, wacky-sounding names from unknown authors, and generically-named recipes that cannot be differentiated without additional steps. In those cases, I usually go towards a recipe by a recognized author or else I'd look more closely at the recipes that do seem more descriptive of the ingredients or cooking method.

jayne

[DanM]

Are recipe names important?? Which of these two names catch your attention

Chocolate Cake

Better than Hot Sex Cake

In some ways, the name of the recipe builds a level of excitement and expectation of the dish that can improve the experience of enjoying it...

3 bits... adjusted for higher food costs.

Edited December 9, 2009 by DanM (log)

[Moopheus]

In some ways, the name of the recipe builds a level of excitement and expectation of the dish that can improve the experience of enjoying it...

Or, more likely, set you up for disappointment, or turn you right off to begin with. I mean, I don't know about you, but I've never had cake I would compare to hot sex. And I really, really, like cake. So right away I know the chef is promising something he can't really deliver: a hard sell. In fact, names like that have become such a cliché now that I'd have to assume it's compensation for mediocrity. In fact, the best cakes I can remember having, at least in a restaurant or cafe, were just labeled "chocolate layer cake" on the menu.

[Tri2Cook]

Are recipe names important?? Which of these two names catch your attention

Chocolate Cake

Better than Hot Sex Cake

Well "Better than Hot Sex Cake" has one strike against it without even seeing the recipe. It's obviously not true. A woman at a catering job I did last year told me a dessert I made was "better than sex" to which I replied: then you haven't been doing it right. However, neither name would help me decide which recipe is better. I'd have to check out both to make that decision.

[emmalish]

Are recipe names important?? Which of these two names catch your attention

Chocolate Cake

Better than Hot Sex Cake

Depends what I'm looking for. If I'm looking for a chocolate cake recipe, I won't bother with the "Hot Sex" cake, because that title doesn't tell me a thing about what kind of cake it is. If I'm just casually browsing recipes, I might check it out. Although I might not – again, because the name doesn't really tell me anything.

If it were called "Better than Hot Sex Chocolate Cake", then I'd probably check them both out and decide between the two based on the actual recipe.

Edited December 9, 2009 by emmalish (log)