Spices: For or against?

[Wilfrid]

Indian cuisine is for Indians. Period. There is no coordinated effort by the Indian government, both on a national and regional level, to lure foriegners to India just to dine there. Or to export the cuisine.

As we have seen on other threads, cuisines don't travel in that way anyway. With the exception of French cuisine, which is a special case, cuisines generally travel with populations. This is why, contrary to Steve's statement, Indian cuisine is well-established in a number of countries around the world with large immigrant populations from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The United States is not one of these countries.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Italian cuisine has traveled that way. In fact the Italian government is very active in promoting Italian ingredients and cuisine outside of Italy. The Danish government promotes their salmon in other countries. Look at Floria Danica and Maison du Denemark in Paris, run by the Danish government. We can probably find many food items/cuisines that governments and municipalities promote outside of their own country. But nobody does it like the French. I have a friend who works for the French cultural office in the states. She can take a junket of say a dozen writers on a truffle eating trip through Provence, where they go to olive oil mills, drink Chateauneuf-du-Pape with the producers, and eat in fabulous restaurants or private homes every night of the trip. In fact she talks about going to a party at the home of a large truffle agent and he had bowls of thinly sliced truffles out for people to eat like they were potato chips. Unlimited bowls of them.

This is now staring to happen with the Spanish food and wine business with the Spanish government making a huge investment into having foods manufactured for export and spending lots of money to market them. I don't think there is an equivelent of this in any of the Asian countries. I mean the Indian government, Thai government etc., could be flying some of their famous chefs here to cook special meals in order to promote tourism. But I don't see that happening, at least I'm not aware of it if it does happen. But there are no shortage of French, Italian and Spanish chefs who come to NYC to cook as special guests. Of course I can take this comment a step further and say that the European countries subsidize chefs coming to the U.S. because they have something to promote, and the Asian countries don't subsidize it because they don't have anything to promote, but let's not go down that road again .

[Wilfrid]

Many governments do promote local industries, including food and hospitality, abroad. That is not, however, the way cuisine travels. Italian cuisine arrived in the United States in a big way well over a hundred years ago. That had nothing to do with Government marketing. I'd be interested to hear of any other cuisine which became established in another country as the result of a conscious marketing/promotional project rather than population movement. The curious thing about French cuisine, as we have seen, is that it was primarily the chefs who moved out of France, for historical reasons. In other cases, it has been a more general migration.

[balex]

You favor pairing wine with Indian food? Are there any good Indian wines? What alcoholic drinks are most traditional in India? Also: Does that mean that no Muslim food can be a high cuisine

Actually, there is a small Indian wine industry. The most famous brand is Omar Khayyam-a very acceptable Methode Champenoise, I think partly owned by Moet.

Several Muslim countries produce wine-Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon. Quality's not great(apart from Chateau Musar) and much was used in the past to "beef up" insipid Burgundy and Claret from poor, thin years. Now that's not done the amount of land under vine in those countries has diminished.

Lots of wines go very well with spicy foods. You can either go for contrast-as with Steve's Ausleses-or you can go for spicy reds such as Australian Shiraz, or Riojas and Ribeiras. I find French reds don't work too well-although a chilled Beaujolais Cru can wash down a spicy meal most acceptably-but decent Alsace is always a safe bet if you're stuck.

A Thai friend who is a wine-collector recommends very good red wine that is slightly too young. The extra tannins and fruit help the wine stand up to the onslaught of flavour and chilli. It works quite well, but I think it is a bit of a waste of the wine.

[The Camille]

Many governments do promote local industries, including food and hospitality, abroad.  That is not, however, the way cuisine travels.  Italian cuisine arrived in the United States in a big way well over a hundred years ago.  That had nothing to do with Government marketing.  I'd be interested to hear of any other cuisine which became established in another country as the result of a conscious marketing/promotional project rather than population movement.

I always thought Italian food became popular in the States as a result of GI's coming home after WWII with a taste for what they experienced in Europe. Was it very popular before? Also, the Polynesion craze supposedly started because of the soldiers coming back from the Pacific front. But I don't know if you could call war a conscious marketing/promotional project....

[Steve Plotnicki]

We are talking about two different things. You are talking about how immigrants bring their cuisine with them to their new country including setting up restaurants and other food related businesses. I am talking about how governments of countries that produce luxury food products promote them including using chefs to demonstrate the products by preparing their cuisines abroad. For example, if India had high quality spices to sell to the U.S., a good way to do it would be to bring various chefs to the U.S. who are expert at mixing spices and have them cook in different restaurants, or even go on the Today show etc. Or they might even subsidize a restaurant in NYC that features the use of those ingredients. Then if it was a success, it could trickle down to other restaurants, including other cuisines who would pick up various techniques and incorporate them into their own cuisine. Or they might subsidize trips to food conferances and seminars that their famous chefs and food producers are invited to. I'm sure there are many Asian fusion chefs in the U.S. who would love to see some master chef prepare their spice mixture so they can copy it. I don't get the sense that Asian governments are as proactive as European governments about promoting their food products and cuisines are. And that would disadvantage them on the worldwide market in relation to how their cuisines are percieved versus other cuisines.

Many years ago, before you probably lived here, the Chinese government subsudized a Sichuan restaurant on 45th street by the U.N. It was enormously popular and it coincided with the boom of Sichuan food in this country. That's the type of thing I am talking about.

[Ellen Shapiro]

Steve, as a working travel journalist who has been on staff at Frommer's, a columnist for Conde Nast, and a freelancer for many years, I'd be happy to share my impressions of how and which governments promote tourism and specifically gastronomic tourism . . . on a new thread.

[Wilfrid]

We are talking about two different things.

I know, but you are not necessarily talking about the right thing. I was pointing out your non sequitur: "Indian cuisine is for Indians. Period. There is no coordinated effort by the Indian government, both on a national and regional level, to lure foriegners to India just to dine there. Or to export the cuisine."

Indian cuisine has been very successfully exported to a number of countries where there has been significant Indian immigration; in Europe, South East Asia, parts of Africa and the Caribbean, for example. Government promotion is a side issue. You are suggesting a way in which Governments of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh might make Indian cuisine accessible to you personally, without you having to venture far afield. That may not be high on their to-do list.

Edited March 25, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

You are suggesting a way in which Governments of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh might make Indian cuisine accessible to you personally, without you having to venture far afield. That may not be high on their to-do list.

But that is exactly my point. One can draw an inference that it isn't on their "to-do list" because they do not have anything to offer that will interest enough people, i.e., it isn't unique, original, creative enough to compete in a worldwide dining marketplace. If it was going to be more lucrative for them, it might very well be on their to do list.

[Jinmyo]

One can draw an inference that it isn't on their "to-do list" because they do not have anything to offer that will interest enough people, i.e., it isn't unique, original, creative enough to compete in a worldwide dining marketplace.

Oh dear.

[Adam Balic]

Ah, that must be the inference that must be drawn - after several thousand years of gastronomic history they have nothing to offer that is unique, original, or creative.

"At Tamarind we pride ourselves on introducing guests to the delights, sophistication and variation of Indian cuisine within a refined and relaxed environment. We are honoured and delighted to be awarded the prestigious Michelin star for the third year".

See even cultures with nothing obvious to offer the marketplace can make a real go of it if the invest in decent china, strip their floorboards and lay on the linen.

Edited March 25, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)

[Wilfrid]

You are suggesting a way in which Governments of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh might make Indian cuisine accessible to you personally, without you having to venture far afield. That may not be high on their to-do list.

But that is exactly my point. One can draw an inference that it isn't on their "to-do list" because they do not have anything to offer that will interest enough people, i.e., it isn't unique, original, creative enough to compete in a worldwide dining marketplace. If it was going to be more lucrative for them, it might very well be on their to do list.

For the twentieth time, Indian food has been massively successful in quite a number of countries. Not in your neighborhood is all.

[yvonne johnson]

Thanks for reminding me about Tamarind (London), Adam. I asked Steve the following question three pages back, but I don't think he answered:

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

[Steve Plotnicki]

I said "could" you know. I didn't say should and I didn't say had to.. But aside from that, you are looking at it from an academic's perspective and I am looking at it from a businessman's perspective. If it is so good, why aren't they selling it? I do not know people to be stupid when they can make money from something that is as easy to sell as good food. If it existed, wouldn't someone be trying to make money from it?

Ah, that must be the inference that must be drawn - after several thousand years of gastronomic history they have nothing to offer that is unique, original, or creative.

I wish longevity was a substitute for good cuisine, let alone creative cuisine. Go to Egypt if you want to see an ancient society that has crappy food at every level. Or should we make a list of all of the ancient or established societies with bad food, or food that hasn't evolved in hundreds of years? How about Germany? Or Holland or Russia? How about Bolivia? You can't even eat the fruits and vegetables there as the ground is contaminated. Not only do they have to be washed, they have to be washed with chemicals.

For the twentieth time, Indian food has been massively successful in quite a number of countries. Not in your neighborhood is all.

Yes at the $50 a meal level and not at the $75 or $100 a meal level. Why shouldn't the data be read to conclude that the reason they can't get the higher pricepoint is that the cuisine isn't good enough? And I am not drawing that conclusion, but it would be a fair one to draw in my opinion.

Yvonne - Sorry I missed that. Because the cuisine they serve is more refined then it is in a place like say, Red Fort or Star of India. Tamarind, a place I like very much,serves a more classical cuisine then Zaika, a place I didn't like very much. But the menu at Zaika reads extremely well and I was looking forward to my meal after reading it. But the end product was slanted too heavily towards traditional cuisine, and not firmly entrenched in the concept of the restaurant which is fusion. I thought the chef would break away from tradition to a greater extent then he does. But let me ask you this now. For either of those restaurants to have three stars, what about the cuisine and presentation do you think would have to change? And you can take 3 pages to answer if you want .

Edited March 25, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Adam Balic]

Yvonne - well obviously it can't be that the UK has greater exposure to Indian cuisine then the US, the market will out after all. I put it down to an abberation after all, if the marketplace saw these restuarants as worthwhile there would be many more such restuarants. Also, they are in England after all, so they more an variation on British cuisine then actually representing Indian cuisine, which we know has nothing to offer.

[Wilfrid]

If it is so good, why aren't they selling it? I do not know people to be stupid when they can make money from something that is as easy to sell as good food. If it existed, wouldn't someone be trying to make money from it?

They are selling it. It's hugely popular. Watch my lips. It's an enormous business in the UK. It's big in a number of countries. Not in the States.

Yes at the $50 a meal level and not at the $75 or $100 a meal level. Why shouldn't the data be read to conclude that the reason they can't get the higher pricepoint is that the cuisine isn't good enough? And I am not drawing that conclusion, but it would be a fair one to draw in my opinion.

Where's the data. I haven't seen it. We have stipulated that there are no such restaurants in New York. And if you think a $100 a head restaurant is more profitable than a $50 a head restaurant, go and ask David Waltuck why he opened Zinc. New York is not ready for such a restaurant, and it's nothing to do with the cuisine.

As for the rest of the world, what makes you think there are no Indian restaurants operating at that level? You can spend more than forty five pounds per head on food at the top level of London Indian restaurants - Salloos, Veeraswamy, Chutney Mary, and so on - and the comparison between London and New York prices makes some sense because of economic conditions; I wouldn't expect to pay as much for a comparable meal in, say, Singapore or Durban. So, where's this "data"?

Edited March 25, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Adam Balic]

Ah, that must be the inference that must be drawn - after several thousand years of gastronomic history they have nothing to offer that is unique, original, or creative.

I wish longevity was a substitute for good cuisine, let alone creative cuisine. Go to Egypt if you want to see an ancient society that has crappy food at every level. Or should we make a list of all of the ancient or established societies with bad food, or food that hasn't evolved in hundreds of years? How about Germany? Or Holland or Russia? How about Bolivia? You can't even eat the fruits and vegetables there as the ground is contaminated. Not only do they have to be washed, they have to be washed with chemicals.

Actually Steve I did say "gastronomic history", you should read about it sometime.

I believe that the process that you talk about ["...the end product was slanted too heavily towards traditional cuisine, and not firmly entrenched in the concept of the restaurant which is fusion."] is a process of 'dumbing-up'. It is still possible to be amazingly ignorant even if you are eating in a refined restaurant.

n.b. Steve. I am not saying that you are ignorant, I am just indicating my view that many people that spend a great deal of time and money on food etc, have very little knowledge about what they are spending their time and money on, therefore, the 'marketplace' etc isn't a measure of anything other then popularity.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I am just indicating my view that many people that spend a great deal of time and money on food etc, have very little knowledge about what they are spending their time and money on,

Adam - Since you don't eat in these places, how would you know? Are you saying that all the people who travel through Europe in search of exquisitely prepared meals don't know what they are doing? When Stravinsky wrote symphonies based on Russian folk melodies, what was he doing, dumbing them down or making great art? And how do you know what the chef at Zaika is doing? Is he dumbing it down, or is he inventing a new cuisine that isn't based on xenophobia and isolationism? How do you know? When the Italians incorporated the tomato into their cuisine, dumbing down or an improvement? I can give thousands of examples like this. How do you know if they are dumbing down or an improvement?

therefore, the 'marketplace' etc isn't a measure of anything other then popularity.

But popularity, and price point, is how every level of the market is gauged. It isn't like this criteria only works for haute cuisine. It works for cheap places too. The best places are typically the most crowded, and/or can charge more money for what they serve.

They are selling it. It's hugely popular. Watch my lips. It's an enormous business in the UK. It's big in a number of countries. Not in the States

Wilfird - But they are not getting $100 a head for it in the U.K. either. The price of a meal at Tamarind, and at Gordon Ramsey are completely different price points.

You keep avoiding my question, but this time I am going to ask it the other way. What is it about French or Japanese cuisine that makes people want to drop $125 for the tasting menu at Jean-Georges or at Suigiyama. Or the $160 menu at Ducasse, or the $160 "best quality" menu at Sugiyama. Or the 270 Euro tasting menu at Arpege? There is clearly no Indian restaurant that anyone has told us about that is in that price range. Why are diners willing to pay more for those cuisines? And we don't have to stick with Indian as a benchmark. Pick a cuisine. When is the last time you heard of someone dropping 270 euros on a mezze? And you know how much I love a good mezze. I've eaten in more middle eastern restaurants in London then the Brits have. Why won't people spend that kind of money on it? With all the Arabic high rollers in London, running around with their offshore bank accounts and mistresses, there is no $125 mezze I know of. Why is that?

[Wilfrid]

Why is that?

Because it doesn't cost that much. Seriously. Or do you really think that the fact a Saudi Arabian businessman, for example, will pay $80 for mezze, but $100 for Gordon Ramsey's cooking, is a fine gauge of his preference for French food? Doesn't that strike you as even slightly silly?

Why doesn't it cost that much? I can think of all kinds of possible reasons: market expectations - clearly important - labor costs, ingredient costs. I hope you're not thinking that there is more money, as a matter of course, to be made from running a $100 a head restaurant than a $70 a head restaurant. Please tell me you don't think that.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Why doesn't it cost that much? I can think of all kinds of possible reasons: market expectations - clearly important - labor costs, ingredient costs. I hope you're not thinking that there is more money, as a matter of course, to be made from running a $100 a head restaurant than a $70 a head restaurant. Please tell me you don't think that.

What you really mean to say is that the cuisine isn't good enough to warrant a higher price point. Isn't that it? Because if we add expertise and creativity to your list of labor and ingredient costs, what we get is better and worse cuisines. And that is what sets the price point isn't it? And I am using "cuisine" in a specific way, as the sum of the variables we listed.

Let' see, where have I gone wrong here. Better ingredients, more labor intensive, more creativity in the cuisine, and a certain type of expertise, that should add up to a better cuisine shouldn't it? Isn't this exactly what people are willing to pay more money for?

[Tonyfinch]

The price of a meal at Tamarind, and at Gordon Ramsey are completely different price points.

I think you have unwittingly answered the question with this sentence. No Indian restaurant is yet named after the name of the chef. Why is Tamarind called Tamarind and not after the name of the chef as per Gordon Ramsey? Why are top Indian and Chinese chefs not as well known as European chefs? It is doubly ironic that it has taken a Western chef- David Thompson-to elevate a Thai restaurant to the haut cuisine price point in London. Could a Thai chef not have done it? Why not? Do they lack business acumen? I don't think so.

I think there are a host of reasons for this. The innate quality of the cuisine is one, but only one. Are we culturally and attitudinally ready to accept a restaurant called "Cyrus Todiwalla" (chef of Cafe Spice Namaste) as readily as we accept one called "Gordon Ramsey"? Actually I think we are closer than we've ever been but anybodywho has paid a visit to CSN on a week night will still be embarrased and appalled at how the wealthy drunken city louts behave towards the Asian serving staff. Here at least Britain still has an empire and can lord it over the darkies. The same people would be cowed and intimidated at Gordon Ramsey's and one can only hand it to the French for occupying that niche in the social stratosphere when it comes to gastronomy

I think this is a fascinating subject but is probably so off topic that its one for another thread.

Edited March 25, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Adam Balic]

Adam - Since you don't eat in these places, how would you know? Are you saying that all the people who travel through Europe in search of exquisitely prepared meals don't know what they are doing? When Stravinsky wrote symphonies based on Russian folk melodies, what was he doing, dumbing them down or making great art? And how do you know what the chef at Zaika is doing? Is he dumbing it down, or is he inventing a new cuisine that isn't based on xenophobia and isolationism? How do you know? When the Italians incorporated the tomato into their cuisine, dumbing down or an improvement? I can give thousands of examples like this. How do you know if they are dumbing down or an improvement?

therefore, the 'marketplace' etc isn't a measure of anything other then popularity.

But popularity, and price point, is how every level of the market is gauged. It isn't like this criteria only works for haute cuisine. It works for cheap places too. The best places are typically the most crowded, and/or can charge more money for what they serve.

Steve - I actually said 'dumbing up', which is a rather different then altogether to 'dumbing down'. And as a further correction, actually I have eaten in some of 'these places' and have enjoyed them a great deal. But enough of the wonderful me, Steve, as I have said before I repect your opinion and I

[Wilfrid]

What you really mean to say is that the cuisine isn't good enough to warrant a higher price point. Isn't that it? Because if we add expertise and creativity to your list of labor and ingredient costs, what we get is better and worse cuisines. And that is what sets the price point isn't it? And I am using "cuisine" in a specific way, as the sum of the variables we listed.

No and no. I know where you want to come out, but you can't do it in the face of the facts. A restaurant which costs $100 a head cannot be warranted better than one which costs $80 a head. If only. I mean, you don't think Le Cirque is better than Blue Hill, do you? It's certainly more expensive. Moving from individual restaurants to cuisines, other than at the very top end, the price of Indian, French, Italian, Japanese, etc, cuisines is comparable. That's been demonstrated by repeated examples here.

Representation in that handful of restaurants at the top of the price range is a function of history and consumer expectations.

Edited March 25, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Adam Balic]

Adam - Since you don't eat in these places, how would you know? Are you saying that all the people who travel through Europe in search of exquisitely prepared meals don't know what they are doing? When Stravinsky wrote symphonies based on Russian folk melodies, what was he doing, dumbing them down or making great art? And how do you know what the chef at Zaika is doing? Is he dumbing it down, or is he inventing a new cuisine that isn't based on xenophobia and isolationism? How do you know? When the Italians incorporated the tomato into their cuisine, dumbing down or an improvement? I can give thousands of examples like this. How do you know if they are dumbing down or an improvement?

therefore, the 'marketplace' etc isn't a measure of anything other then popularity.

But popularity, and price point, is how every level of the market is gauged. It isn't like this criteria only works for haute cuisine. It works for cheap places too. The best places are typically the most crowded, and/or can charge more money for what they serve.

Steve - I actually said 'dumbing up', which is a rather different then to 'dumbing down'. And as a further correction, actually I have eaten in some of 'these places' and have enjoyed them a great deal. But enough of the wonderful me, Steve, as I have said before I repect your opinions and you have a very good point about something being improved by taking a 'rustic' version of X and tweaking it to make a refined version.

But, you examples of Stravinsky etc really don't work at all. It assumes that X cuisine is inferior to cuisine Y and for cuisine X to really 'get there', it has to be shoe-horned into the cusine Y model. Fine, I'm sure that works in many cases, however, it assumes that all cuisines are inferior in comparison to Y and that is quite possibly that saddest thing that I can possibly imagine for the future development of food, served in one of 'those places' or not. This is especially sad for me because as far as I can tell you are one of the most food experienced people I have spoken to and yet, you basically are saying that if it isn't Y cuisine then it has little to offer.

Why on earth would anybody be interested in that sort of bleak, comformist creativity? Eating a meal can be one of the most rich and rewarding expriences anybody that is humanly possible, experienced on many levels. The implication that you repeatively make that really 'getting' food invoves eating a certain type of food in a certain type of establishment is, in my opinion, very wrong and not a little bit insulting. Waverly Root may have been a snobbish old fellow, but when he chose to write about the food in France it was about much more then simply restaurant food. I would hope that I could aspire to be like that.

Why do people eat exquisitely prepared meals? Mostly for reasons of 'lifestyle', not the food. Infact, I challenge you to find any one of these people that able to sustain my level of interest in food on my level of 'lifestyle' choice.

[Steve Plotnicki]

think you have unwittingly answered the question with this sentence. No Indian restaurant is yet named after the name of the chef. Why is Tamarind called Tamarind and not after the name of the chef as per Gordon Ramsey? Why are top Indian and Chinese chefs not as well known as European chefs? It is doubly ironic that it has taken a Western chef- David Thompson-to elevate a Thai restaurant to the haut cuisine price point in London. Could a Thai chef not have done it? Why not? Do they lack business acumen? I don't think so.

Tony - You are going to hate my answer but it is a very simple one. No Indian chef does something that is so unique that it warrants naming the restaurant after him. I have been indirectly making that point since the beginning of these threads. And I'll even take it one step further. I will bet you that Indian cuisine is still in the stages where chefs are just employees, and the restaurants are owned by restauranteurs. (happy birthday by the way.)

It is doubly ironic that it has taken a Western chef- David Thompson-to elevate a Thai restaurant to the haut cuisine price point in London. Could a Thai chef not have done it? Why not? Do they lack business acumen? I don't think so.

I keep trying to explain this as well. And yes it is business acumen. Part of what made haute cuisine so successful was the entrepreneurship of the chefs. Look at Hermant Mather at Diwan. He's the greatest tandoori chef in America. He's an employee. But Floyd Cardoz is an owner and he gets more money per meal then Diwan does. And the chef at Zaika is an owner and his price point is up there as well. I can't speak for David Thompson because I haven't eaten there, nor have I read much about it, but he's an owner. What makes their price points higher is they have an individualized take on their cuisines, i.e., they each have their own cuisine. That is what diners value. Original cuisine that you can't get elsewhere.

I think there are a host of reasons for this. The innate quality of the cuisine is one, but only one. Are we culturally and attitudinally ready to accept a restaurant called "Cyrus Todiwalla" (chef of Cafe Spice Namaste) as readily as we accept one called "Gordon Ramsey"?

I agree with you it is a tougher burden. But let's be honest, the reason there isn't a restaurant called Cyrus Todiwalla (great name for a restaurant by the way) is that what he does isn't so distinguishable from what other Indian restaurants do. Let's take what I think are the top tandoori places in NYC and London. Diwan and Tamarind. Nothing about what they do at either place is distinguishable to the chefs hand.

That is the key. Distinguishable to the chef's hand. Where we started was whether interesting spicing routines are distinguishable in the way that western diners would latch onto.

If only. I mean, you don't think Le Cirque is better than Blue Hill, do you?

Wilfrid - Well, yes I do. Le Cirque is in a different and higher category then Blue Hill is. They serve true haute cuisine, higher cuisine then the bistro-ish/modern small restaurant style cuisine they serve at Blue Hill.

You see the measure I keep using is the level of cuisine they prepare. Not how proficient they are at preparing it. Proficiency is a secondary factor that mitigates the first factor. That way a good performing small restaurant with a lesser scope like Blue Hill, can be a better restaurant then a poor performing haute cuisine restaurant like La Cote Basque. But from my last meals there. Le Cirque is still a very good restaurant and offers much finer cuisine then Blue Hill does.

But, you examples of Stravinsky etc really don't work at all. It assumes that X cuisine is inferior to cuisine Y and for cuisine X to really 'get there', it has to be shoe-horned into the cusine Y model.

Adam - But folk music is an inferior form of composition to symphonic composition. And I'm not using the word composition in a casual manner. There are rules of composition and that governs what is considered better. Same with cuisine. When the chef at Zaika is trying to make a higher Indian cuisine, he says for example, I am going to take a basmati rice pilaf, a certain style curry sauce with vegetables in it, and sauteed shrimps, and instead of serving them on three different plates. I am going to prepare them in a way that combines them like a risotto or a paella. His aesthetic statement is that he is improving the cuisine and moving it beyond simple ethnic cuisine, or folk music as in my Stravinsky example. Now what he created might not be any good. But that really has nothing to do with the fact that it is judged by a standard we call cuisine, that has rules just like formal composition has rules. And when I go to his restaurant (and I mean me in this instance,) I weigh how good the cuisine is. And not only compared to other Indian cuisine, all cuisine.