Spices: For or against?

[hollywood]

Once there were three men sitting around a campfire. One of them said, "I'll tell you a story that never ends." Once there were three......

[Wilfrid]

You're shameless. I like Le Cirque, because I liked old-style food in cushy surroundings, but the cuisine there is simpler and less elaborate than that at Blue Hill. But the example doesn't matter, Steve, the point matters. If restaurants with higher price points are superior, then Aureole and La Grenouille are better than Blue Hill too; Cafe Des Artistes is better than Picholine; and the Four Seasons is one of the best restaurants in town.

Thank god your stomach doesn't pay any attention to your theories.

Of course, your move is to substitute "serves a higher form of cuisine" for "serves better food". Okay, deal: top French restaurants serve a "higher form of cuisine" than any Indian restaurant. Not necessarily better food.

And all this talk of price points, let me repeat a question you avoided:

- Do you believe that - even as a general rule - the higher the price point the more profitable the restaurant? (Go ahead, I have more :laugh:'s all lined up.)

[yvonne johnson]

[On the Michelin stars]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  .

I think I've mentioned before, I've visted Tamarind and Zaika, albeit a couple of years ago. I'm not sure I'd say anything other than the ambiance at both places was refined. The cuisine at T seemed uninspired. I've had similar, better dishes at much cheaper places. I thought Zaika was misguided and weird. As you say, and I've also heard from others, they've toned it down a bit at Z, though I'm in no hurry to go back

But back to why I asked about the stars.

Technique: You emphasise this a lot and I think Michelin saw evidence of refined technique at T and Z, even though I didn't. But even if I disagree with Michelin on their choices, I maintain that Indian cooking requires complicated techniques, and that's why I also asked you if you'd cooked Indian food at home. I cook quite a lot of it as well as French, and I can say that in many cases the Indian recipes demand more care, careful measurement, one to keep an eye on multiple ingredients.

Why don't Indian restaurants command the same respect and prices as, say Japenese and Fench places? I think TonyFinch made an excellent point that has to do with diners' attitudes. What, $100 for an Indian meal? At least in the UK, an Indian meal is synonymous with cheap meal. But I predict that the number of higher end Indian restaurants will continue to grow. Look at Shaan, Salaam Bombay, Tamarind, Surya (not that liked the last one the time I went) in NY--all opened in recent years and they are a move a way from the average spots and, in general, they are very good and more expensive.

Lastly, Steve, I'm not sure I buy your argument that accomplished chefs have to have an individualized take on their cuisines. So, to answer your question, I'd pay 4 star prices for classical Indian dishes made very well, in a nice environment with excellent service.

[Tonyfinch]

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.

Well there I do agree with you. Cheffing is not yet seen as a worthwhile career by aspirational middle class Asian families in the West. It's a bit like Jewish families. Can you imagine a Jewish boy telling his parents he wants to be a CHEF? "Do me a favour.. Jewish boys EAT. They don't cook...At least not for a living...Not even Jewish GIRLS do that....Do me a favour......buy the restaurant and employ else to cook in it...... do me a bigger favour....buy a CHAIN of restaurants and employ lots of people to cook in them"

The problem with that is the restrauteurs who own the restaurants don't neccessarily give any more of a stuff about food than they do about ladies fashions, or any other products. It is business pure and simple. The chefs are lowly paid employees from poor backgrounds and there just not the same opportunities and career paths and cultural and personal incentives to follow the dream of being a top Asian chef.

This is something I deeply admire about the French. They have long seen being a chef as a noble and worthy ambition and have created a system which allows those with the talent and commitment to get to the very top and become internationally renowned.Who knows how many potentially marvellous Asian chefs have never progressed because there was no possibility of doing so?

But it's getting there. I predict we will see a couple of Indian restaurants reaching the price points of Nobu and Nahm and Vong in the next decade or two and a couple of chefs will have their names above the door or somewhere in the name. And I'll be the one organising the first e gullet event there.

Edited March 25, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

You're shameless. I like Le Cirque, because I liked old-style food in cushy surroundings, but the cuisine there is simpler and less elaborate than that at Blue Hill.

Wilfird - Well I do not think anyone in the food industry would agree with you. I haven't been at Le Cirque in a very long time, but I do not recall what you are saying to be the case. I always found it to be a true Four Star restaurant (NY Times). Blue Hill is either a two or three star at best. There are reasons for that, that have to do with the scope of the cuisine. Blue Hill might be creative cuisine, but it isn't particularly involved cuisine. It's mostly three or for ingredients that are cooked in a way to bring out their natural flavors. Anissa is similar in scope. As is Prune although it's a little more rustic. But none of those cuisines have the refinement and complexity of Le Cirque, if they stil cook the way I knew them to cook there when Daniel, Sylvan and Sotah were the chefs. Dan and Mike are great chefs, but do not cook in the same league as those guys. Can you not taste the difference when you dine at these places?

Vedat actually makes a point that is very similar to mine in his Northen Italian thread. It's in he post where he responds to Craig Camp, Liz and me. But it's near the end of the response to Craig.

Do you believe that - even as a general rule - the higher the price point the more profitable the restaurant? (Go ahead, I have more 's all lined up.)

What does profatibility have to do with anything I said? I have no way of knowing what is more and what is less profitable. Based on my business experience, unless costs vary so greatly from one genre of cuisine to another, the more you gross the more falls to the bottom line providing you do not lose control of your business because it has gotten larger. And in general, I do not know a restaurant owner in the city who wouldn't want their average check to be larger if it could be. That's what they all dream about.

But even if I disagree with Michelin on their choices, I maintain that Indian cooking requires complicated techniques, and that's why I also asked you if you'd cooked Indian food at home

Yvonne - Well we are going to have to parse the word complicated now aren't we. How can we get a shortcut here?

If you are familiar with the Moroccan dish Dafina, it is a very complicated dish. It's what they call a "Sabbath bake." Morrocan Jews were able to prepare it and put it on the fire before sundown. And since you are not allowed to cook after sundown, and placing something on the fire would technically be cooking, they devised this terrific dish. But the dish is basically the following. A highly spiced cassoullet like stew made from lentils and soup meats, and there is a meatlof stuffed with baked eggs wrapped in cloth in the middle of the stew. The entire concoction is placed in a large pot with a cover on top, and then, bread dough is placed around the edge of the pot to seal in the juices and aromas while it is cooking. It cooks for approximately 18 hours. From sunset on Friday to after synagigue lunch on Saturday which is when it is eaten. As you can probably imagine from the description, it is one hell of a delicious thing. And it has tremendous complexity to it. But no matter how complex it is, it is upscale home cooking. And as Vedat said on his Italian thread;

However, to declare what is basically an upscale home cooking with top ingredients to be among the top 10 restaurants in the world is a hectic and, in my opinion, a false statement. One has to take other components of fine dining into account such as superior technique, research that went into the dish, intelligent combinations, focus and harmony, etc..

So when you say the following;

Lastly, Steve, I'm not sure I buy your argument that accomplished chefs have to have an individualized take on their cuisines. So, to answer your question, I'd pay 4 star prices for classical Indian dishes made very well, in a nice environment with excellent service

I know you mean that when you say it, but it's a theoretical that can't really happen anymore. Today's high cuisine is based on the individuality of the chef. Just like you go to the theater to see Nathan Lane in The Producers. Why go to see him instead of his replacement? Because he is unique and original and he lends something to the part that is indispensible. Same with chefs. The only 3 star restaurant in the world that I know of where the restauranteur is as famous as the chef is Taillevent. And that is only because he has upheld a tradition that his father started more then 50 years ago.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But it's getting there. I predict we will see a couple of Indian restaurants reaching the price points of Nobu and Nahm and Vong in the next decade or two and a couple of chefs will have their names above the door or somewhere in the name. And I'll be the one organising the first e gullet event there.

Now that was a nice post. Full of pride for what you love. It is a good quality to be able to see the potential in the future despite the limitations that might exist in the present. And let me know when you are organizing your event. I'll be the first to sign up for it.

[Tonyfinch]

Ok this is where I see where we are. We agree that the most expensive and most highly regarded restaurants in the world are those where the individual chef is the main attraction. Many of those are French or French style restaurants. Some-El Bulli in Spain, The Fat Duck in England, are not French as such but use French style techniques.

Some- Nobu, Nahm, Vong, Locatelli- are not French at all.

No Indian restaurants in the West are at quite this level---yet. Where I disagree with Steve is that he appears to be saying that this is because a spice based cuisine cannot reach this level however talented the cook.

I say it is perfectly possible for Indian food to soar to this level, that there are many socio/cultural/racial/historical reasons why it may not yet have done so, and what's more that it WILL do so in over the next decade or so as Western educated Asians broaden their aspirational base.

Time to wait and see who's right.

[Pan]

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.

As I remember, one of the best meals I ever had was at an Indian restaurant my parents and I happened upon in, I believe, Akasaka, Tokyo. It was not a cheap restaurant, and served what at least some people would think of as high-class Indian food. It turned out that the restaurant was associated with the Indian Embassy in Tokyo.

Caveat on my opinion: I was 10, and the year was 1975. However, my parents clearly loved the meal, too.

[Steve Plotnicki]

No Indian restaurants in the West are at quite this level---yet. Where I disagree with Steve is that he appears to be saying that this is because a spice based cuisine cannot reach this level however talented the cook

That's a fair summation of my position.

This is actually an interesting aspect of the development of cuisine that Torakris touched on. When the French abandoned highly spiced cuisine and started to create a new one based on mild spicing, how much did that help the development of their cuisine? I would imagine quite a lot. There are some obvious reasons for that. Let me make a list. Or maybe I should wait for India Girl because she is so good at making lists .

I would think that lessening your dependancy on spices and creating better agro systems have some connection. The more mildly spiced, the easier it is to taste the ingredients, the better quality ingredients you need. I will place my money on this very simple riddle I just constructed. Especially if the issue is the "westernization" of the next generation of Indian chefs.

Pan - Do you remember what you ate?

[yvonne johnson]

Steve:"Yvonne - Well we are going to have to parse the word complicated now aren't we. How can we get a shortcut here?"

I was using the word to mean what you mean by "complex".

I'm unfamiliar with Dafina. Reminds me, didn't you say that Bouillabaisse was haute? I don't see why peasant and home cooking can't become haute. But this is old ground.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I'm unfamiliar with Dafina. Reminds me, didn't you say that Bouillabaisse was haute? I don't see why peasant and home cooking can't become haute. But this is old ground

Actually no I didn't. What I said was that it used some sophisticated techniques compared to Zuppa di Pesce and a Catalan Style fish soup. And those techniques are why it is a better fish soup.

I was using the word to mean what you mean by "complex".

I agree with you that an Indian meal is complex. But it is still like home cooking, and it is missing the level of refinement (at least at places like Tamarind and Diwan) that is associated with haute cuisine. Upscale home cooking and high cuisine are two different things. Like Tony says, it will happen one day. It just hasn't happened yet.

Edited March 26, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Pan]

Pan - Do you remember what you ate?

What we ate at that Indian restaurant in Tokyo? Wow, that's hard to remember now! I believe the check was something like $35/person in 1975, by the way, in those days of nearly 300 Y=$1. We gorged ourselves so much that we seemed to disgust the waiter.

I recall a divine Carrot Halwa for dessert, and I don't think I've ever had another rendition that was its equal, even in India. Gratings of carrot, perfectly fried in ghee with black raisins, cardamom, sugar, etc. (no doubt the traditional reduced milk) until glazed and translucent but not overcooked. Interesting how that was the thing that most impressed me and which I remember most distinctly. We were almost too full to even order it, but the meal was so good we didn't want to leave.

I honestly can't remember the rest of the meal distinctly, but I believe we had some very filling lamb dish of delicious, spicy, very harmonious flavor. We must have had soup or/and appetizers, main dishes (probably accompanied by something like alu paratha) and dessert. Sorry, there's no way we'll be able to establish from my very generalized memories whether it would have met your definition of "haute cuisine" or not, but it certainly was an example of very expert and refined north Indian cuisine.

[Pan]

I'm unfamiliar with Dafina. Reminds me, didn't you say that Bouillabaisse was haute? I don't see why peasant and home cooking can't become haute. But this is old ground

Actually no I didn't. What I said was that it used some sophisticated techniques compared to Zuppa di Pesce and a Catalan Style fish soup. And those techniques are why it is a better fish soup.

How does my beloved Soupe de Poisson Nicoise fit in here?

[g.johnson]

I'm unfamiliar with Dafina. Reminds me, didn't you say that Bouillabaisse was haute? I don't see why peasant and home cooking can't become haute. But this is old ground

Actually no I didn't. What I said was that it used some sophisticated techniques compared to Zuppa di Pesce and a Catalan Style fish soup. And those techniques are why it is a better fish soup.

Why are people prepared to pay $100 for bouillabaisse if it's not haute? Wasn't price your yardstick a moment ago?

[Pan]

Why are people prepared to pay $100 for bouillabaisse if it's not haute?

Where is bouillabaisse $100?

[indiagirl]

Steve:

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

I might as well confess, now that the secret is out - Suvir is a government chef. And I am a goverment propoganda minister.

:)

Back into I-give-up land.

[yvonne johnson]

[yvonne johnson]I'm unfamiliar with Dafina. Reminds me, didn't you say that Bouillabaisse was haute? I don't see why peasant and home cooking can't become haute. But this is old ground

Actually no I didn't. What I said was that it used some sophisticated techniques compared to Zuppa di Pesce and a Catalan Style fish soup. And those techniques are why it is a better fish soup.

Steve, now I'm confused. Last year you wrote:

"But what I gleen from all of this is, that a [bouillabaisse] is based on a peasant fish soup/stew dish that preceded what we call a proper bouillabaisse. How it got it's name, or how it became fancified is a phenomenon of the modern restaurant or the middle class home of the 19th century. And that period coincides with the codification of the cuisine, and that some of these terms must have been caused by the codification, or by restaurants naming dishes, which in large part was due to the fact that they were trying to sell printed books to middle class homes, or good meals to an affluent customer. Which brings us to the very point of how marketing still works today, in that there is a need to concisely and uniquely express every item. And to offer a Plotnickiism to end this all, I would assume that this example will be a common one, where a peasant dish was "titled" and possibly refined for purposes of communication so it could be consumed by a different class than the ones it originates with.

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...illabaisse&st=0

(page 1)

Davidson (whom you cite in full post above, and as you suggest above) writes that the dish has a primitive origin, but that the dish became different when it was cooked in restaurants because it incorporated more expensive fish.

Are you arguing that for any cuisine to become "haute" it has to go through this similar stage from cheap to more expensive ingredients?

Pan: Le Bernardin offers a prix fixe dinner menu ($79) and lunch ($40s) and the bouillabaisse that I had as part of my dinner a few months back was the best I've ever had. http://www.le-bernardin.com/

[Steve Plotnicki]

Why are people prepared to pay $100 for bouillabaisse if it's not haute? Wasn't price your yardstick a moment ago?

I didn't say people paid more for haute. I said they paid more for French. Haute is just one of the things that the French have to offer that other cuisines can't offer. There is also a luxury food category for non-haute cuisine, like luxury bistros where roast chickens for two are $80-$100 or four inch roasted prime ribs that price out in that range. In my experience, the French have the most expensive fish stews, sausages and cabbage, bean casserole with meats, and probably many more dishes if I cared to look.

But if you want to know a little more about bouillabaisse, and caccuico, which is like a zuppa di pesce, here is a good link to an Arthur Schwratz article.

Fish Soups

And if you want to understand why bouillbaise costs so much money, try this link from Clifford Wright. Even I was impressed.

Bouillabaisse

Pan - For a soupe de posson, after the fish is cooked, they puree the broth with the fish still in it and then they strain it. So you get a thin broth that is full of fish flavor, as well as having some body because of pureeing the fish. A bouillabaise gets its body from the rapid boil which emulsifies the olive oil into the broth. More of a velvety mouthfeel.

Your meal sounds like a womderful memory. I wonder if that restaurant is still there?

Yvonne - I reread that quote and it doesn't say haute does it? It just says that they created a fancier version of a peasant dish. Fancier soup doesn't mean it's haute. It just means it's fancier. Haute is a specific style of cooking like opera or ballet are specific styles of singing and dancing.

Have you never been to the Cannes/Nice are for a bouillabaisse at either Tetou or Bacon? I promise you it is an entirely different experience then what you had at Le Bernadin. A good BB is monumental in both appearance, as well as the effort it takes to eat it. If you have a hearty appetite you can easily go through four or five bowls of soup that are loaded with fish filets and croutons slathered with rouille and doused with grated gruyere cheese. It really is a heady experience and it gives you a rush. The last time I had one (1999?), one of the people we were dining with became hypnotized somewhere around his third or fourth bowl and we found him with his head crouched low over the bowl just staring into it. The thing is, the broth in a BB can be iffy and it is crucial to the success of the dish. I don't know why it is great sometimes and others sort of lackluster. I could never figure out if it is seasonal or not. Someone must know the answer to this.

The other dish that offers the same type of heady experience is a good cous cous. If you are in Paris and are dining with say, 10-12 people, they will bring you a platter of cous cous that is the size of a pizza tin from Ray's Pizza, with a cous cous that is perfectly formed into a mound and must be almost a foot high in the center. And laid out on the cous cous are all sorts of grilled meats and chicken. In fact so many different cuts and portions of them that the cous cous is almost completely covered. Then they deliver a series of tagines to the table, chicken with olives, lamb with cinammon, prunes and almonds, and lamb and chicken with preserved lemon, and a huge tureen of spicy lamb bouillion and a bowl of boiled chick peas. Mrs. P loves to make a bowl filled with cous cous and doused with bouillon, dressed with some chickpeas and then treated with some harrisa (moroccan hot sauce.) She then cuts off various pieces of the grilled meats and small portions of the tagines and has an unbelievable plate of food. Have you not done this with 12 of your best friends in Paris?

I don't know if what I just described could cost quite $100, but you can get close. But the cost is for the sheer quanity of food. I don't think in the instance of the cous cous or the bouillabaise, that expert culinary technique is what you pay for. It sounds to me like anybody could learn how to be the bouillabaisse or cous cous chef without any formal training. So those are instances where people are paying for something else, other then haute cuisine. But there are examples of this in other cuisines. How about a Bollito Misto? Another peasant dish but which is also found in some of Italy's more elegant restaurants where they make more refined version.s So it's not a cut and dry thing. But still, it dosn't change the original assertion that people are willing to pay more for things of better quality. Sometimes those things are small plates of food where a chef has handled every aspect of the dish and hours and hours of effort result is a four inch square portion of food and it costs $45 as an appetizer. And sometimes people pay for an abundance of quality but without the same amount of effort in preparing it. But that doesn't mean that the dish is lacking when compared to other dishes in its class. It just means the emphasis is placed elsewhere. What's amazing to me, is that the French, and their colonies, excel at both types of cuisine. They are the best at the haute and the best at the naught haute. Isn't that amazing?

[yvonne johnson]

So you're saying the dishes that give you a high (hypnotic, monumental) are not high class? I've never seen you write so rhapsodically about any other food. Funny that. And they're not even haute

PS I did have bouillabaisse in Nice a few years ago and that found at Le Bernardin was better--maybe luck of the draw/fish.

[Adam Balic]

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.

Steve - you are not totally informed on all cuisines that stalk the earth. 'Indian' food may be an example of this. So when you do this:

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.

you are not actually doing anything of the sort. You are weighing what you are eating a restricted assortment of Indian food against what you actually know about food in total. You know very little about Indain food, so how on earth can you judge it?

That thing that the chef at Zaika is doing, it is a 'traditional' way of cooking a pilaf, he hasn't moved anything beyond the 'simple ethnic cuisine' (that I can tell from your description). Look up a book on Persian cooking.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Adam - You keep raising variations of the absolute truth argument. What I don't know, or what is not available to me, has no relevance to my assessment. I can only measure what is part of the general marketplace. That there might be a chef that nobody ever heard of, who is in the deepest Himalayas, and who is cooking the greatest food in the entire world, has no bearing on what I am saying. It is like you are telling me that I can't take the position that Stravinsky is the greatest Russian composer because there might be some composer from Siberia that wasn't fortunate enough to be performed for extenuating reasons so my statement about Stravinksy couldn't absolutely be true. Hogwash and that is relativism. I can only make comments on what is available in the marketplace.

Where we get into a rut is that you keep saying (and this particular argument is popular around here with the academics,) that the correct inference to be drawn when you can't absolutely prove anything is that you can't reach a conclusion. But that isn't responsive to my proffer which is limited to how the market feels about what is available to it.

The dish at Zaika is nothing like Persian cuisine. It was more like how the chef was trying to present it, a risotto. Problem was, a risotto is delicately spiced because you are trying to taste the quality of the rice, let alone any other ingredient that is included. And if you add a high percentage of spice to the dish, you can't taste the rice and the shrimp very well. This is a perfect example of what I call "overspicing" and Indian chefs are going to have to change their strategy about how they spice things if they want to westernize their cuisine.

So you're saying the dishes that give you a high (hypnotic, monumental) are not high class? I've never seen you write so rhapsodically about any other food. Funny that. And they're not even haute

Yvonne - High class, is not the same as haute. Gilbert & Sullivan might have made high class music (depending on your point of view,) but it is still operetta and not opera. What distinguishes opera from the other is a lengthy list of formal rules that you need to comply with. And they are not interchangeable. When you want to see an opera you can't just go see The Pirates of Penzance instead. This is the same. Many cuisines have luxury versions of home cooking that are not haute but are indeed high class. A $100 bouillabaisse or cous cous are good examples of that. Or a roast beef dinner in the U.K. at a place like The Dorchester Grill is another good example. A high quality meal that is very pricy, but it is not haute cuisine. Indian food operates on this level if you ask me. In fact, for this level of cuisine it is amazingly complicated. But it is not the same as haute cuisine.

I'm sorry to hear about your BB in Nice. As someone who has eaten a good dozen authentic ones over the years, a good one can be as compelling as I described. The key ingredient in a BB is the Rascasse fish, or rockfish. Something that isn't available in NYC. So I'm afraid your Le Bernadin BB couldn't have been an authentic version.

Edited March 26, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[oraklet]

"There are rules of composition and that governs what is considered better." (steve p)

another problematic, almost platonic, absolute statement. any conclusion based on that sort of premise will be at least partly false, given that the logic is correct.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually it isn't. You have taken my statement to mean that the formal rules will arrive at an absolute truth and I haven't said that at all. One needs to look at the rules to understand this because there is wiggle room as part of the process is a critical analysis. But that only describes the very high end, where applying the rules in a way where there is a clear result is difficult to do. But what the rules clearly do is to seperate wheat and chaffe. They make it easy to eliminate Mary had a Little Lamb when comparing it to The Rite of Spring. Mary had a Little Lamb is is not a symphony because it doesn't conform to the rules. And it's melody is simplistic and the main theme from The Rite of Spring is complex. Should we get the scores and compare them and demonstrate why?

That is why the first question that you need to ask is, what level of cuisine are we talking about? The proffer is that people are willing to pay more money for a higher level of cuisine then a lower level.

[Adam Balic]

Adam - You keep raising variations of the absolute truth argument. What I don't know, or what is not available to me, has no relevance to my assessment. I can only measure what is part of the general marketplace.

Well stop making sweeping gernalisations then.

Where we get into a rut is that you keep saying that the correct inference to be drawn when you can't absolutely prove anything is that you can't reach a conclusion.

I'm not saying that 'we' as a collective group can't draw some conclusions, I am saying that you cannot make absolute claims based on the limited amount of knowledge (as broad and insightful as that is) that you have.

I know that in the correct context you believe this to be true, as on numerous occasions you have said things along the line of 'you can't have an opinion of high end restaurants when you don't go to them' and 'are you one of those people that claims a $10 bottle of wine is just as good a $100, when they have never tasted one?" etc etc.

Fine, but if so, I can see no case where my lack of knowledge of high end food culture, is in some way different to your lack of knowledge on the ethnic cuisines etc that you offer such ready and authorative opinions on.

I can only make comments on what is available in the marketplace.

This is becoming something of a mantra. To get back to the original topic and your example. Even I know that in some of the many various high end Indian (+others) cooking there is a very important emphasis placed on the rice, in terms of flavour, texture, colour and aroma. Books and people I have spoken to mention that the origin, variety (or sub-variety) and age of the rice is extremely important. If the chef at Zaika presented the rice as a risotto then he was, as you say, responding to the market by presenting an Indian dish in a more conventional manner, however, twenty years ago this same 'marketplace', would not have known the difference between 'Arborio' and 'Uncle Ben's'. The marketplace became educated though and there is no reason to see why it can't be in the case of [example] Indian food.

To be frank, much of this food described sounds like refined versions of food that have originally been dumbed down and in this instance I can seen much in you point about food being improved by reducing the spice levels to bring in other flavours. But, there is so much variation in the various cuisine types that get lumped together under the term of 'Indian food', that I see your statements about Indian food being 'improved by' and reflecting 'what the markets want' as generalisations based on very little knowledge of the subject matter.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fine, but if so, I can see no case where my lack of knowledge of high end food culture, is in some way different to your lack of knowledge on the ethnic cuisines etc that you offer such ready and authorative opinions on

But there is plenty of thrid party ratification for what I am saying. For example, there is an entire industy built around cuisine. There are famous chefs who have cookbooks that are sold on a worldwide basis. Many of them not in English. There are French chefs (many,) Italian chefs (fewer,) Spanish chefs (extremely prolific at the moment,) British chefs (prolific as well,) Australian chefs (were extremely prolific but seems to have slowed a bit,) and over the last few years a surge in German chefs and even a few Dutch chefs have published books about their cuisine. And of course there is Nobu and Testuya who anchor Japanese cookbooks. But there are no Indian chefs, Thai chefs, Chinese chefs, Mexican chefs etc. Chefs who do things so unique and creative that there are cookbooks published with their recipes, seem not to exist in those cuisines. And it isn't like there aren't cookbooks published about Indian and Thai cuisine. Loads of them. But they aren't written by restaurant chefs, they are writen by home cooks. And they feature home cooking.

My pricepoint argument is tied into the state of cookbooks today. The restaurants with chefs who are able to publish cookbooks because they have a unique restaurant cuisine, are able to charge more money for a meal then restaurants that serve a restaurantized version of home cooking. That is not a generalized statement. It's a true statement based on real facts. And the worldwide food press is in line with this as well. The magazines are full of places to eat in all of the countries that have chefs who have excelled beyond their peers. But there is hardly any copy about places to eat in India, Thailand, etc., all the places that are without chefs who haven't managed to distinguish themselves outside of the context of the local cuisine.

To be frank, much of this food described sounds like refined versions of food that have originally been dumbed down and in this instance I can seen much in you point about food being improved by reducing the spice levels to bring in other flavours. But, there is so much variation in the various cuisine types that get lumped together under the term of 'Indian food', that I see your statements about Indian food being 'improved by' and reflecting 'what the markets want' as generalisations based on very little knowledge of the subject matter.

But this is a naive view. What the chef at Zaika is trying to do is to blend two concepts. The western concept of risotto which means the rice tastes a certain way and the Indian concept of a spiced cuisine. Where he went wrong is that a risotto is a specific thing. Like classical music, there are rules. If you want to call something a risotto, the end result means that you have to have done something to the rice that makes it unique so it can be the focus of the dish. He missed that point and made the spicing the focus. That isn't a risotto anymore. Had he done a better job at it, it would have has the characteristics of a risotto made in an Indian style.

One of the great things about creativity is that there are no boundaries. Most people that try and adapt techniques from other cultures do it poorly. But a good chef can notice the similarity between a pilaf and a risotto and make a statement about both of them at the same time. Whether that statement rings true with diners is a separate and discreet issue. But in the first instance, we are not assessing the diners reaction, we are trying to identify which chefs are making aesthetic statements. Home chefs I contend are not making aesthetic statements. What diners support, and are willing to pay more money for, and what cookbook publishers print, and what food magazines write about, are chefs whose cuisine offers a unique aesthetic that can't be found elsewhere, especially in home dining. Price points, cookbooks published, magazine articles or guide book reviews, those are all third party ratifications that certain chefs practice a higher art, and that certain cuisines are higher up on the cuisine food chain. I haven't seen anybody put forth any evidence to dispute that.