Spices: For or against?

[Stone]

If this continues long enough, I think Steve will explain that what he really means is that dinner at Atelier is demonstratively better than the Chicken Tikka Masala or Rogan Josh at Curry a-Go Go, and that all the rest of the discussion is an exercise in political correctness..

[Jinmyo]

Adam, I like spices too!

But I'm on the middle ground. It depends upon the context of the meal as a whole, the ingredients, and the skill with which they're used.

[Adam Balic]

Steve keeps are wits sharp, it is the reason why we created him.

I am positive that some spicing combinations change the base flavour of the dish. I will think about this phenomena.

[Wilfrid]

If this continues long enough, I think Steve will explain that what he really means is that dinner at Atelier is demonstratively better than the Chicken Tikka Masala or Rogan Josh at Curry a-Go Go, and that all the rest of the discussion is an exercise in political correctness..

Thank you for making my point in a less pompous and verbose way. That is exactly why this discussion is stuck in a rut.

[Stone]

If this continues long enough, I think Steve will explain that what he really means is that dinner at Atelier is demonstratively better than the Chicken Tikka Masala or Rogan Josh at Curry a-Go Go, and that all the rest of the discussion is an exercise in political correctness..

Thank you for making my point in a less pompous and verbose way. That is exactly why this discussion is stuck in a rut.

I'm here for you.

[SobaAddict70]

I wish the tone of this thread would become less confrontational and defensive. Anyone remember the original question?

This sort of thing occurs fairly regularly, especially when the Gospel according to Plotnicki is involved. Fortunately, where there are true believers, there are also atheists.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Soba

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually I wasn't very fond of my dinner at Atelier. Except that egg dish with the langoustones and the truffles was superb. But the rest of it, French cuisine standard issue. Unfortunately I wish the food at places like Curry in a Hurry was better then it is. It is this point, originally by India Girl, and then ratified by Sandra, which demonstrates where we go wrong everytime, or as Wilfird says, stuck in a rut;

Steve will say no, it's all gravy. Other will say it's a new dish and we'll be off for another 6 pages. Why bother?

But it isn't that it's all gravy, it's that the Italian and Indian chefs whose food I eat do not cook carefully enough for it to be anything else but the same dish with a different sauce. I keep trying to make that point and everyone keeps wanting to talk about something else. Twenty painters draw a line but then Picasso draws a line. There is a level of cooking that revolves aroung great precision and care about detail that only exists in higher cuisines which means four star restaurants (NY Times.) It possibly exists in some dishes at the three star level. But it does not exist at the two star level. They just do not cook carefully enough. And if you haven't noticed, the highest rated Indian restaurant only gets two stars and this is the reason why.

What I would like to see is an Indian chef deconstruct my tandoori and reformulate it in a way that I can see that it is connected to the original dish. Or maybe someone will take chicken breasts and coat them with paneer and then tandoor it for a moment or two just to cook it through, and then lightly sauce it. Anything but the same old dishes you see in every restaurant. Why can't Indian cuisine be something new and modern? You see, no matter what you say about expert spicing, you still run into this problem. You are talking about the old, and I am talking about the bold. Traditional cuisine is traditional cuisine, and modern cuisine is modern. I do not see a lot of modernity in Indian cuisine.

[Wilfrid]

No, we're still stuck Steve. You're comparing two star (maybe one star and no star) Indian restaurants, where apparently you choose to eat bad food with bold, innovative modern cuisine at the four star level. You might as well compare a tricolor-bedecked bistro on Restaurant Row with Daniel. In fact, that would make more sense.

What a waste of time.

If you're saying anything meaningful, it's that no Indian restaurants exist above that level. We've told you that's wrong. You're response is, well I've never eaten in them. Indeed not. What can we do for you further?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually I'm not comparing them at all. I am asking why there aren't any Indian restaurants performing at the four star level? And if there was, what that would mean to the cuisine and what changes would they have to make? You see I think that Tony, India Girl and Nerissa would say that if I go to a place like Saloos in Lahore, I would find great Indian cuisine. But my gut tells me it still wouldn't be at the standard of the four star restaurants.

I believe that every cuisine can turn out a four star version, if the cuisine is pliable, meaning it hasn't hit a logical dead end. I am having a hard time believing that complex spicing routines is what could propel Indian cuisine to that level. My instinct tells me it has to be more then that. But at the same time, to me, places like Tabla and Zaika are closer to it then places like Diwan are. But then the traditionalists say that isn't "real Indian food." Which makes the question, is there such a thing as four star Indian food? Or has it yet to be invented?

[Pan]

Actually I'm not comparing them at all. I am asking why there aren't any Indian restaurants performing at the four star level? And if there was, what that would mean to the cuisine and what changes would they have to make? You see I think that Tony, India Girl and Nerissa would say that if I go to a place like Saloos in Lahore, I would find great Indian cuisine. But my gut tells me it still wouldn't be at the standard of the four star restaurants.

Yeah, why check it out if you'd rather make ignorant statements? Another way of saying this is that "relying on your gut" amounts to prejudice. You are prejudging what your reaction would be. I really think all of this is unbecoming of you, and totally inconsistent with your approach toward people who would deprecate French cuisine without eating at any 3-star establishments. But this has already been pointed out to you a bunch of times. So the question, then, is _why_ you prefer to be prejudiced than to at least concede the point that you simply don't know how you'd react to Indian cuisine on the highest level? What's your personal stake in being prejudiced against Indian cuisine? Look deep within yourself, and you may find out something about yourself. But this has nothing to do with anyone else.

[indiagirl]

You see I think that Tony, India Girl and Nerissa would say that if I go to a place like Saloos in Lahore, I would find great Indian cuisine. But my gut tells me it still wouldn't be at the standard of the four star restaurants.

9 pages of discussion about something your gut is telling you?????????????

I remain in the "I give up" state.

Tony - I doubt it's called Chiravate anywhere in the north. That's a name quite specific to Maharashtra.

[nerissa]

You see I think that Tony, India Girl and Nerissa would say that if I go to a place like Saloos in Lahore, I would find great Indian cuisine. But my gut tells me it still wouldn't be at the standard of the four star restaurants.

9 pages of discussion about something your gut is telling you?????????????

I remain in the "I give up" state.

Tony - I doubt it's called Chiravate anywhere in the north. That's a name quite specific to Maharashtra.

I am becoming a national of the "I-give-up" state. I hear they are accepting applications.

[Steve Plotnicki]

You have gone too far and I am not going to participate anymore. I will not be called prejudiced because I have pointed out the limits to a cuisine. If there are examples of Indian cuisine that rise to the level of high cuisine I would be happy to hear about it. But right now the only examples have been wet meats and tandooris that are spiced in a complex manner. That in my opinion is not high cuisine, and I don't know a single publication that considers it high cuisine either. In fact, I believe it will never be considered high cuisine no matter how complex the spicing gets. The point is made and as far as I see, no one has been able to refute it.

[anil]

I think only the clueless and prejudiced folks call and lump all different cooking as Indian

Bengali cuisine is so different from Maharastrian, which differs from Gujurat, which differs from Awadhi. Not to talk about the vast difference between Kerela and Punjab.

There is more similarity between some regional French and Northern Italian, than between Kashmiri and Mysorian cuisine. In fact the differences in Kashmiri and Mysorian are as structural as ingredients,spices and techniques are quite different. Even the langauages that one speak in the South are different from the North. The languages spoken in the south do not even fall within the Indo_European linguistic framework.

How would the westerners feel if a villager in India, who has never travelled to any European country, lumped all French,German,Polish,Hungarian,Bulgarian cuisines and cooking as "vilayati" cuisine ? On top his understanding of the food came from restaurants in India calling the food European or continental

In india, people who can afford, and appreciate good food find it in Clubs an Gymkhanas, restaurants will rarely compete in that arena. I cannot imagine BreachCandy Club, or old Juhu Gymkhana ever having o worry about competition from restaurants in 5star hotels

Edited March 22, 2003 by anil (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

What is happening on this thread is that those who are partial to Indian cuisine, cannot tolerate the truth being told that it pretty much revolves around wet meat with a variety of different saucing techniques, and tandooris which from my experience most often puts out dry and overcooked meats. And rather then face up to those limitations in the cuisine, they would prefer to play the race card rather then argue it on the merits. Anil did it earlier in the thread and a bunch of us ignored it. This time I am pointing out that it is offensive and not the slightest bit funny. And it is no accident that it is cropping up at the point in the conversation where I have put forth an argument that Anil doesn't seem to have an answer to. That no matter how good the cuisine he is describing is, it is not high cuisine by the standards we use today.

[nerissa]

That no matter how good the cuisine he is describing is, it is not high cuisine by the standards we use today.

QUOTE: What is happening on this thread is that those who are partial to Indian cuisine, cannot tolerate the truth being told that it pretty much revolves around wet meat with a variety of different saucing techniques, and tandooris which from my experience most often puts out dry and overcooked meats.]

Actually, a number of us have pointed out that indian cuisine is too varied and diverse to even center around "wet meats"...it is impossible to make a claim about india or cuisine that is that limiting. Southern Indian (e.g. Mysore) is vegetarian. It "revolves" around various crepes, pancakes, flatbreads and so forth.

QUOTE: And rather then face up to those limitations in the cuisine, they would prefer to play the race card rather then argue it on the merits. Anil did it earlier in the thread and a bunch of us ignored it. This time I am pointing out that it is offensive and not the slightest bit funny. And it is no accident that it is cropping up at the point in the conversation where I have put forth an argument that Anil doesn't seem to have an answer to. ]

I searched under Anil and couldn't find any such post; I also scanned the 1st 3 pages. I entirely agree that such use is offensive-- the only race card that was played beside you came from someone who made a poor joke probably out of frustration and pain from banging his head on the table*. I really don't think anyone is accusing you of being a racist; I do not think Anil's use of prejudice below is meant along racist lines. Prejudice and racism are kissing cousins, but many of us have our prejudices, whether we like it or not. I really doubt that you are a racist, as I think Fat Guy and Jason would kick you out the front door. And, besides, I have not seen any hint of such in those posts of yours that I have read.

Can I respectfully say that you just are not getting it?

You talk at length about high cuisine and technique, but I do not believe you have defined it in this thread. I welcome your view. Feel free to point out where you may have defined these terms. I suspect that you will offer definitions for these terms that say something along the lines like "how the French or the chef(s) at El Bulli do it".

*Edited to add "head on the"

Edited March 22, 2003 by nerissa (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Nerissa - Thank you for that. Anil can speak for himself as to what he meant.

I suspect that you will offer definitions for these terms that say something along the lines like "how the French or the chef(s) at El Bulli do it".

But we know that what what those chefs do is high cuisine. Why should what Indian chefs do be considered at the same level? And I am very serious when I ask that because I don't see why they should be.

Have you read what I just wrote on the pasta thread about eating at La Broche this week? They served me "Melted Mozzerella Soup with Basil Pasta (made with gelatin) and dotted with bits of tomatoes. I wish I could find an Italian restaurant that was trying to be as creative and modern and sophisticated in their cuisine as they were being in a Spanish restaurant. Can I find this in Indian cuisine? And believe me when I ask, it's because I would like it to exist. I want high level cuisine regardless of where or how it originates. But if it doesn't exists, a) sombody should just say so and b) also admit that it isn't the end of the world. Because it will exist with time as the market for a "nouveau" (sorry to use a French word but what would the phrase be? ) Indian cuisine grows as the population gets more affluent. Or, it's going to be like Italian cuisine and basically be stagnant and spicing routines will be like different shaped pastas.

[indiagirl]

What is happening on this thread is that those who are partial to Indian cuisine, cannot tolerate the truth being told that it pretty much revolves around wet meat with a variety of different saucing techniques, and tandooris which from my experience most often puts out dry and overcooked meats. And rather then face up to those limitations in the cuisine, they would prefer to play the race card rather then argue it on the merits. Anil did it earlier in the thread and a bunch of us ignored it. This time I am pointing out that it is offensive and not the slightest bit funny. And it is no accident that it is cropping up at the point in the conversation where I have put forth an argument that Anil doesn't seem to have an answer to. That no matter how good the cuisine he is describing is, it is not high cuisine by the standards we use today.

Inspite of Nerissa's excellent company, I feel compelled to make a brief foray out of the "I give up" state. And only because I feel very misrepresented. And I certainly have never played the race card.

Also, I apologize to everyone who is here to discuss spices because I think if anywhere, this post belongs in that other thread we have all participated in "The Measure of All Things".

Steve, please read this with patience and an open mind.

Also, with the realization that I have ZERO incentive for making you think better of Indian food. Personally, I don't give a fuck. Really.

The only reason I am here, is the same reason I am on eGullet. It is a place for someone like me who loves food to hear about and learn from others about things I have not been able to experience myself. And to share and revel in common experiences. That is what I am trying to do here. Learn about French haute cuisine from you and hope that you will learn something about Indian cuisine from me. I believe the former has happened and the latter has not.

Yes, there are people on this thread who are partial to Indian food. That does not make their arguments invalid or unreasoned. This is what they have collectively said about it:

1. It is complex. Sometimes because of the spices. Other times because of the cooking techniques.

2. There are "haute cuisine" versions of it available in the east.

3. It is horribly misrepresented in the west. Also, the representations are limited to very specific types of Indian cuisines.

4. For somebody who has only experienced it in the west, Steve's opinions are more or less understandable, but they are only representative of Indian food as typically found in the west. They are not representative of Indian cuisine.

5. To extrapolate about all of Indian cuisine based on having only experienced it in the West is not valid.

6. The reasons that there are more amazing French restaurants in the west than there are Indian, are historical and socio-economic.

Now on to tandooris and "wet meat" as you call it.

Rubbing meat with spices and cooking it with dry heat is a technique the French use. Tandoori is no different. Even as a vegetarian, I have tasted succulent Tandoori chicken (that is not neon red, btw) - it is not meant to be dry and overcooked.

Wet meat - Many Indian curries are no different in concept than a fricasse. The lamb curries I mentioned rarely call for the lamb to be cooked in the sauce for any more than 10-15 minutes. And there are other techniques in Indian food. The use of flour to coat a meat, sweating vegetables, cooking meats whole in a spices broth, etc.

Grouping Indian techniques as "Overcooked, dry, tandooris, wet meat" etc. is the equivalent of grouping French food as "Lots of butter and cream, fried or baked hunks of meat, slathered with thickened, fatty sauces".

I believe we have, here and on other threads, tried to give you examples of Indian techniques in response to your points about it. I do not understand why they seem to make no difference to your opinion.

I believe we have never reached a point where we discussed reasonably whether one technique is more complex than another and what criterion can be used to judge the complexity of a technique. Time. Effort. I would have loved to participate in such a discussion. But we appear to have begun with the conclusion that French food techniques are superior to all and that Indian food techniques are inferior. All facts then seem to get quickly slotted into those conclusions and we proceed to support or defend them. Why a well executed raan is inferior in technique to a Carre de Agneau Persille is what I want to discuss, let the chips fall where they may.

Your last sentence in that post - That no matter how good the cuisine he is describing is, it is not high cuisine by the standards we use today. - is why I keep trying to retreat into "I give up" land.

[yvonne johnson]

Well said, indiagirl. Thanks for taking the time to construct your arguments.

Steve:

1. have you ever cooked Indian food at home? (Or is that a stupid question because "haute" must mean cooked and eaten in a restaurant?)

2. What's your explanation as to why Zaika and Tamarind in London have a Michelin star each?

[indiagirl]

No, no, thank YOU, Yvonne. For reading the post (and of course, complimenting it!)

:)

Edited March 22, 2003 by indiagirl (log)

[anil]

I searched under Anil and couldn't find any such post; I also scanned the 1st 3 pages. ....

This is probably my second post on this thread. I have noted a tendency in these boards for people to use embedded words and couched terms to attack ethnicities that some how is deemed inferior. Race-baiting to me is a very offensive facet of many western places and people. I've experienced it world wide.

Injecting words like race and racism, and personal attacks are trademarks of folks who want to put down a sub-group or ethnicity -- Very similar to asking someone to stop abusing their children and beating their wives In my world I find many clueless people - an example of it would be using security and Microsoft is same breadth or Open Source to be equiv. of communists

A vast majority of Indians are Hindus and vegetarians - The only group of brahmins who are non-vegetarians are from WB & Kashmir - The cooking of meats whatever they are, are influenced from the conqouring Mughals and the Portugese. I really have no intent to incite,bait,agitate or disturb anyone who can easily get excited, aroused or baited.

On the other hand in how many of these places (not really all are countries) have you all eaten ?

Edited March 22, 2003 by anil (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

This is probably my second post on this thread. I have noted a tendency in these boards for people to use embedded words and couched terms to attack ethnicities that some how is deemed inferior. Race-baiting to me is a very offensive facet of many western places and people. I've experienced it world wide.

Anil - It is you who is indeed race baiting when you write in this manner. On this thread, in fact on this board, we have only discussed the proficiency of cuisine(s). NOT THE PEOPLE WHO COOK THE CUISINE AND THEIR CAPABILITIES AS HUMAN BEINGS. If you insist on raising non culinary issues in terms of race, you are the one who is indeed raising the spector of racism. If you want to make your arguments you are going to have to find a way to show them outside of calling the people on this thread racists.

Why a well executed raan is inferior in technique to a Carre de Agneau Persille is what I want to discuss, let the chips fall where they may.

It very well might be superior (the raan that is). But so far only been one place has been named that serves it and it is in Lahore. And if you look at the recipe for Raan (which I have,) there is no reason you shouldn't be able to get a world class version in NYC or London. Actually, a Gigot a Sept Heures avec Fruits Confits is probably a better example because it is slow cooked. Or a Mechoui in Moroccan cuisine which is slow cooked lamb shoulder. Those three are probably equivelents. The problem is, where do we go after after Raan?

Yvonne - Actually once but not very successfully. And I have attempted to cook haute cuisine at home as well. It's a big pain in the ass and after trying to it becomes obvious why it's pretty much exclusively restaurant cuisine.

India Girl - Thanks for being level headed as usual. But when you say the following;

6. The reasons that there are more amazing French restaurants in the west than there are Indian, are historical and socio-economic.

You are sort of making my point. French cuisine and it's varients (modern British, upscale American, modern Spanish) are so evolved because there is such a strong restaurant culture. If this was the case in the sub-continent, the cuisine would probably be more evolved in the manner I am describing.

I am still waiting for someone to come along and say that as good as Indian cuisine is, it is missing the level of cuisine I am describing. It is like there is some grudging reason people do not want to admit it. And my comeback to those who keep saying that I am approaching this with a closed mind is to say, why is it that you can't see that I also might be right about that part of it?

As long as we are on the record here, in NYC, the most compliated Indian cuisine I have sampled is at Ada on 58th Street. Don't ask me what they served us. But there were a number of dishes made with soft doughs made from chickpea flour that were more sophisticated then what I usually see in Indian restaurants, including at Diwan.

[ngatti]

Steve Plotnicki said:

I am still waiting for someone to come along and say that as good as Indian cuisine is, it is missing the level of cuisine I am describing. It is like there is some grudging reason people do not want to admit it. And my comeback to those who keep saying that I am approaching this with a closed mind is to say, why is it that you can't see that I also might be right about that part of it?

Steve, Without fully understanding the cuisines as well as the participants on this thread do, the most I'll say on either side is that I see the point you are trying to make. It is a pretty complex one, but it is also an arguable one IMO. Which is why people are arguing with you . Culinary cultural relativism . Oh man! I'm not sure I want to go down this path.

Nick

Edited March 22, 2003 by ngatti (log)

[Stone]

I think Steve just likes French food better than Indian food. Personally, I like Thai better than Vietnamese, and Chinese best of all. I like Ethiopian alright, but not as much as Italian. BBQ is pretty darned good, but I don't like it as much as Indian. It's a matter of taste.

[ngatti]

I think Steve just likes French food better than Indian food.  Personally, I like Thai better than Vietnamese, and Chinese best of all.  I like Ethiopian alright, but not as much as Italian.  BBQ is pretty darned good, but I don't like it as much as Indian.  It's a matter of taste.