Spices: For or against?

[Adam Balic]

Let's see it has taken ~200 years to develop the restaurant scene to the point where it is. It would seem from the second and third party ratification that I have that it is onle in the last ~50-30 years that the US market has known its arse from its elbow in terms of ability to appreciate fine cuisine.

On the otherhand the fact (?) that there is no demostrable industy built around cuisines of India and Thailand, in countries that have had very little significant exposure to these cultures, indicates that these cultures cuisines are in some way 'inferior'? I don't think that this is 'proof' of very much at all.

To take a leaf from your book and take one example to build an entire system of belief around it. Thai cooking. Many, many cookbooks, very few in English. One 'market' acclaimed Thai restaurant in the world (ran by an Australian). English language chef cookbook published by said Australian Thai cuisine cook, has many many recipes culled from Thai language cookbooks. Therefore, Thai cuisine in Australia Thai chef's restaurant is dependent on ability of Australian chef to translate Thai into English, therefore, the thing that is holding back the development of more market acclaimed Thai restuarants is not the use of to much spice, but the lack in ability of most chefs to read the Thai language. I believe that this is called sophism and therefore, has much similarity to your arguements.

In addition there are many models of food preparation, some of them even on a very sophistcated levels that are neither 'restaurant' or 'home cooking'. You know, you mention that creativity has no boundaries, but much of you points involve pigeon holing and placing restrictions on creativity, by building a hierachy of bestness. It may be possible to to this, but not if you are not suficiently informed on the system that you are placing worth-judgements on.

[Steve Plotnicki]

On the otherhand the fact (?) that there is no demostrable industy built around cuisines of India and Thailand, in countries that have had very little significant exposure to these cultures, indicates that these cultures cuisines are in some way 'inferior'? I don't think that this is 'proof' of very much at all.

The reason there is no demonstrable industry built around those cuisines is that the cuisines won't support the industry. I keep saying that and you keep saying I can't prove it. We keep coming back to this very same disagreement. I say in light of demonstrable evidence that it exists, and I have offered three different ways to evidence it, price point, cookbooks and the press, I say it does not exist. You want to draw the opposite inference and I'm not sure on what basis other then some sort of political correctness or egalitarianism. Either it exists, or it doesn't exist. That it might exist in the future, or there are socio-economic reasons it doesn't exist today, or that it is percolating somewhere and I don't know about it, all that is fine and dandy. The situation is fluid and the market for cuisine adjusts itself all of the time. I can only take a snapshot in time and assess it against a standard criteria.

As for "cultures cuisines" (I assume you meant culture/cuisine,) yes there are cuisines that are inferior to other cuisines when using certain standards to measure the sophistication of technique they employ. But this is true in every aesthetic. Naive painting is an inferior technique of painting then cubism. Folk song writing is an inferior method of composition to writing symphonys. Haute couture is a superior method of clothing design to making bluejeans. Every world has it's way of measuring things including cuisine. And if you don't want to accept the way things are measured, well then don't. But just because you don't want to accept them, that is no evidence that the people who develop what the standards are and critique things according to those standards don't know what they are doing. I think if you dug deeply into how they arrive at their conclusions, you would see that they very much know what they are doing. In fact, you really have no evidentiary basis to not defer to their authority other then you don't want to for reasons that have nothing to do with an evaluation of the aesthetic they are measuring.

[Adam Balic]

As I have have repeatively said, I have no problem with some cuisines being 'better/superior' then others, based on a number of different critieria. What I am saying is that you make to many un-informed generalisations to say that cuisine X could be improved by doing Y to it. It may very well be true, but that is all. I absolutely are not trying to draw that opposite inference to you, I don't see the world in such a black and white manner as that.

This isn't about my personal politics etc, it is about me saying to you that when you make a definative statement about a cuisine or spicing etc then you have better have definative proof. That has nothing to with me being jealous of you or political correctness, it is about making a valid point, backed up by more then your personal opinion.

For instance when you say that too much spicing is a negative thing, it isn't a valid statement. What does 'too much' mean? What spice? etc etc etc. It isn't about comparing blue jeans and Haute couture, it is comparing European Haute couture to Asian Haute couture for example. In the former case it assumes that one is inferior to the other, the second allows this possiblity, but importantly, requires the two to be examined critically before such opinions are made. And by critical I don't mean examining Eastern Haute couture using European values either. I'm afraid that your views seem to be in the former camp, as your examples demonstrate.

Edited March 26, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)

[Wilfrid]

First thing in the morning, and so much to correct already:

1. Steve, you're completely out of touch with Le Cirque. I have eaten Boulud's food and Portay's food, and Le Cirque is not producing food like that these days. The range of techniques and variety of ingredients employed in the average dish at Blue Hill is more "involved", to use your term. But as I said, it really doesn't matter whether I've picked the best example: my proffer is that restaurant A being more expensive than restaurant B does not mean that restaurant A is better than restaurant B. Let's see you deny that, and we'll know where we stand.

2. You're right about profitability - the more you gross the better and the larger the average check the better. And this is why restaurants at the top level can be less profitable than restaurants with lower menu prices but a much larger volume of business. Of course, the prestige of running a top level restaurant can be the springboard for success in running lower cost line extensions (dB Bistro Moderne was full from day one because of Restaurant Daniel's reputation), as well as getting book and TV deals, etc.

Why are these two points relevant? First, because you think the absence of an Indian restaurant at the absolute top level of dining out in New York or London indicates a deficiency in the cuisine. Second, you appear to think it indicates that there isn't an Indian food industry. For example:

The reason there is no demonstrable industry built around those cuisines is that the cuisines won't support the industry. I keep saying that and you keep saying I can't prove it. We keep coming back to this very same disagreement. I say in light of demonstrable evidence that it exists, and I have offered three different ways to evidence it, price point, cookbooks and the press, I say it does not exist.

Well, you can say the Taj Mahal doesn't exist until you are blue in the face, but the global Indian restaurant business exists as much as the global Chinese restaurant business. Its volumes and profits are vast. Your inability to discover an Indian restaurant with a $100 tasting menu, or an Indian cookbook written by a restaurant chef, is utterly irrelevant to that fact.

So the industry does exist, just not at the four star (Michelin three star) celebrity chef level. You admit there may be "socio-cultural" reasons for this. Of course there are. There are also plenty of good, hard business reasons why it doesn't exist at that level in American cities. I think we all agree about that. But you want to say that there is something specifically about the cuisine which - unlike other cuisines - makes that step impossible. As far as I can see, nobody - and that includes people who know quite a bit about Indian food - believes you.

Edited March 26, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfird - Like I said, I haven't eaten at Le Cirque in years. So I do not know what level they are currently peforming at. As for your proffer, like I told Fat Guy, my proffer has nothing to do with indivdual restaurants, just levels of cuisine. It is possible that a restaurant that serves a lower form of cuisine can be more expensive then, and be better then, one that serves a higher form of cuisine. The exercise here is to be able to determine how sophisticated restaurants are and what level of cuisine they offer. And while the food at Blue Hill is more "involved" to use your world, I would be disappointed if I went to a four star restaurant and that is what I was served. It isn't high enough cuisine. The cuisine at a place like Arpege shows, and again, these are Vedat's words,

"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."

There is far more of this at Arpege then at Blue Hill. And there used to be far more of it at Le Cirque.

Why are these two points relevant? First, because you think the absence of an Indian restaurant at the absolute top level of dining out in New York or London indicates a deficiency in the cuisine.

Well what I said on the Babbo thread, and this is the most concise statement about it, is that it evidences that the supply side can't create interest at that pricepoint. That statement is irrefutable. Because it only takes into account that there is't any at that level (a fact) and it interposes a theory as to why. The answer for anyone who disputes that is, how come the other cuisines do not have this problem?

So the industry does exist, just not at the four star (Michelin three star) celebrity chef level. You admit there may be "socio-cultural" reasons for this. Of course there are. There are also plenty of good, hard business reasons why it doesn't exist at that level in American cities. I think we all agree about that. But you want to say that there is something specifically about the cuisine which - unlike other cuisines - makes that step impossible. As far as I can see, nobody - and that includes people who know quite a bit about Indian food - believes you

But that is the only level I am referring to. And I haven't said it is going to be impossible for someone to create that. In fact I've been quite clear in saying it is possible. But what I have said is that in order for them to do it the cuisine needs to move beyond high class home cooking and into a phase of cuisine that transcends its ethnic origins. That doesn't mean completely discard them, that means transcends them so a culinary statement can be made on an international level. That is what Nobu did. It is possibly what David Thompson is doing. Heston Blumenthal is doing it. Grant Achutz is doing it at Trio. Obviosuly Adria and others are doing it in Spain. If you look at any of those chefs, you will find the same thing to be true. They all transcend point of origin. But what makes them all the same/similar, is that they practice a very high level of technique, which by the way of you haven't noticed, is how cuisine gets measured .

As I have have repeatively said, I have no problem with some cuisines being 'better/superior' then others, based on a number of different critieria. What I am saying is that you make to many un-informed generalisations to say that cuisine X could be improved by doing Y to it. It may very well be true, but that is all. I absolutely are not trying to draw that opposite inference to you, I

Adam - But how can you say I am uninformed. I have the worldwide food press at my fingertips including what diners on this board write. Bourdain just flew all over SE Asia and he highlighted one single restaurant as being among the best of the world. Why do you not think that if what I am describing existed out there, I wouldn't know about it?

[Adam Balic]

As I have have repeatively said, I have no problem with some cuisines being 'better/superior' then others, based on a number of different critieria. What I am saying is that you make to many un-informed generalisations to say that cuisine X could be improved by doing Y to it. It may very well be true, but that is all. I absolutely are not trying to draw that opposite inference to you, I

Adam - But how can you say I am uninformed. I have the worldwide food press at my fingertips including what diners on this board write. Bourdain just flew all over SE Asia and he highlighted one single restaurant as being among the best of the world. Why do you not think that if what I am describing existed out there, I wouldn't know about it?

Informed people don't make generalisations and expect that to be enough. And I'm guessing that would be the Western food press you are refering to. I notice that Bourdain didn't say that Thai people don't "get" cuisine for instance or that all that SE-Asian food could be improved by reducing the 'spicing' level.

[Wilfrid]

If your contention is that Indian cuisine can be prepared and served in a $100 a head context, but it would need to be fussied up a bit, I don't know what the debate is about. It's possible that the fussying up would mean promoting blandness and toning down challenging flavors and textures; I find this all the time at the most expensive restaurants, because they have a significant, high-spending percentage of their clientele who need to be reassured and babied. The reason so few cuisines have made this step is the historical expectation of the clientele that expensive food is French.

One other point:

...(T)he supply side can't create interest at that pricepoint. That statement is irrefutable. Because it only takes into account that there is't any at that level (a fact) and it interposes a theory as to why. The answer for anyone who disputes that is, how come the other cuisines do not have this problem?

It's not a question of refuting the statement; I'd just like to see some evidence that someone had tried and failed. If, for example, restaurants like Nobu and Jewel Bakko had failed in New York, one might have drawn an analogous inference about Japanese cuisine. It is a comparatively recent phenomenon that Japanese cuisine has been accepted at that level, outside the Japanese business community, in cities like New York. Indeed, the fact that France has a near-exclusive grip on that level seems to me to support the contention that we are dealing with a cultural rather than a gastronomic phenomenon.

[Steve Plotnicki]

If your contention is that Indian cuisine can be prepared and served in a $100 a head context, but it would need to be fussied up a bit, I don't know what the debate is about. It's possible that the fussying up would mean promoting blandness and toning down challenging flavors and textures; I find this all the time at the most expensive restaurants, because they have a significant, high-spending percentage of their clientele who need to be reassured and babied. The reason so few cuisines have made this step is the historical expectation of the clientele that expensive food is French.

Well this elucidates the differences better then anything. If you think the difference between Arpege and Blue Hill is that Arpege "fussied up the cuisine," we will never get anywhere because you aren't accepting the premise that cuisine is gauged by. If what moves you is a more raw cuisine, so be it. But that does not negate any of the arguments I have made because I am describing what that market values. I have never purported to be describing anything else. And you can deride that market as being fools, but you are not doing a good job of deferring to authority when you do that . I'm more of, the experts are experts school and should be treated that way. That is because I have found from my own experience, their opinion and my assessment seem to be very much in agreement.

It's not a question of refuting the statement; I'd just like to see some evidence that someone had tried and failed. If, for example, restaurants like Nobu and Jewel Bakko had failed in New York, one might have drawn an analogous inference about Japanese cuisine

But as I keep saying, the reason that nobody has tried and failed, is that the people who back these restaurants (experts) do not have anyone to back in the context of doing it with Indian cuisine. I assure you that if there was an Indian chef out there who people who finance restaurants felt the NY Times would give 4 stars to, they would take the chance and open a place like that. There is no backing because it doesn't exist.

You know I do this for a living. I finance creative ideas that people have. And if you ask people in my industries, or in the musical theater or drama, or in the film industry, or the toy industry, or in the restaurant business, the biggest problem we all have is that there isn't enough creative talent to drive demand. We are alll desperate for the next big thing. And I am sure that people who finance restaurants would love to have a four star Indian chef come along. Look at how popular Tabla is. How come, when they are so successful has nobody else opened a modern Indian restaurant in this town. Did you ever think that what stops it from happening is that Floyd Cardoz is a one of a kind and there isn't anyone else like him?

[Wilfrid]

But as I keep saying, the reason that nobody has tried and failed, is that the people who back these restaurants (experts) do not have anyone to back in the context of doing it with Indian cuisine.  I assure you that if there was an Indian chef out there who people who finance restaurants felt the NY Times would give 4 stars to, they would take the chance and open a place like that. There is no backing because it doesn't exist.

Flip flop again. You said there wasn't a demand for it at that price point. Which is it?

As for enjoying food with flavor and texture, I'll defer to A.J. Liebling, thank you.

Edited March 26, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Informed people don't make generalisations and expect that to be enough. And I'm guessing that would be the Western food press you are refering to. I notice that Bourdain didn't say that Thai people don't "get" cuisine for instance or that all that SE-Asian food could be improved by reducing the 'spicing' level.

Adam - To be informed you have to have a worldview of cuisine. The Thai people you are referring to do not have that worldview. They have a great cuisine, which takes advantages of the great techniques that are involved in Thai cooking. But the other perspective of the same cuisine is that it is limited on an overall basis because it is isolationist and only looks within itself. The cuisine doesn't improve. It is stagnant.

If you take the British chefs who have been at the forefront of modern British cuisine, people like Gary Rhodes and Paul Heathcote, what inspired them to raise the level of British cuisine is their experience of eating other cuisines outside of Britain. Go eat a roast chicken in France, or a veal stew in Italy and the clarity of flavors hits you in the face. Chefs do that and they go back to their own country and they say, how can I get my Bubble & Squeak or Sausage and Butter Beans to have the same clarity of flavors. And they improve the local cuisine because they adopt techniques they source elsewhere and they impose it on their own cuisines. All of a sudden they take the way the French prepare their beans for cassoulet and use it in Sausage and Beans and poof, the flavor is amazing.

This is the phenomenon that drives cuisine. From what I see, it is not happening in Thai cuisine at the moment, unless David Thompson is doing it. Nor is it happening in Indian cuisine outside of Tabla and Zaika and the others in that genre. But interesting cuisine, depends on this to happen over and over again.

[Tonyfinch]

Another problem for professionally trained and professional chefs coming here from India to work is the whole rigmarole of obtaining visas and work permits. The truth is it is much easier for a David Thompson to obtain these than it is for any native Thai chef.

Insitutional racism is ingrained throughout British officialdom and is embedded in its bureaucratic procedures. Having said that, Britain is far more enlightened in this respect than any other European country, but these Indian chefs speak English and they don't want to go anywhere else.

Being able to cook, even at a high level, is not seen as an important enough skill to warrant allowing Asian chefs to come into the country to ply their trade. Fay Maschler touches on this point in her review of two new Indian restaurants in today's London Standard, both of which feature renowned chefs (though not in the names of the restaurants,alas)

She says the restrictions have eased recently and that this will mean that they should encounter fewer problems in being allowed to a) come here and b) stay here. Maybe home office officials have decided that they like curry enough to recommend an easing of restrictions on Indians whose skill may lie in the culinary dept. Meanwhile Maschler's column features a large photograoh of one of the reviewed chefs-rare for a review of an Indian restaurant. The name above the door isn't far away...........

[Wilfrid]

This kind of factual background is essential to understand the issue, Tony. My contribution is that immigration policy in the United States has been far from a level-playing field for all ethnic groups and "East Asian" immigration was barred for much of the last century by the 1917 Immigration Act. This must be one major reason the States doesn't have the history of Indian cuisine that we have in Britain.

I discovered, to my surprise, that Chinese immigration was also barred for much of the last century, but had been of such volume in the nineteenth century that a large Chinese community was already well established.

[g.johnson]

Does immigration still operate on a quota system? If so, I suspect the South Asian quota is filled by computer programmers rather than cooks.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well I assume that Indian cuisine, which is a delicious cuisine, will overcome whatever hurdles and obstacles that face it with time. But there are many cuisines that derive from affluent countries that are crap, or that do not vastly improve beyond being an ethnic cuisine. In reality, cuisines are nothing more then theories. And like all creative endeavors, some theories can only go so far then they exhaust themselves. This issue of spicing, is not exactly an easy issue to deal with. We are all assuming, and hoping that this happens successfully, and that Indian chefs will find a way to crack that nut so to speak.

Let me ask you a question. What if the chef who does it is a non-Indian like David Thompson? I ask this question because Suvir, like me, thinks the best dosas in NYC are made by Hampton Chutney Company which is owned by an Irish/American Guy and his wife who studied yoga in India. So there is no guarantee it will be someone who is Indian.

[Tonyfinch]

So there is no guarantee it will be someone who is Indian.

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. Or with David Thompson taking Nahm to haute cuisine level. I've haven't eaten there mainly because it gets very mixed reports, mostly of the very interesting but very variable variety, but I've read interviews with Thompson and his passion for and commitment too the highest expression of Thai cuisine is undoubted.

It's just a fact that a white Australian chef will find a visa and work permit easier too come by in the UK than an Asian with comparable skills. And an EC chef does not now need these at all. I was just pointing out that that is just another in a wide range of factors which mitigate against equality of opportunity and which may have a bearing on the way chefs and cuisines develop in different societies.

Edited March 26, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[indiagirl]

Does immigration still operate on a quota system? If so, I suspect the South Asian quota is filled by computer programmers rather than cooks.

Yes it does.

Yes they do.

My extremely typical immigration history:

Entered on a student visa.

Went on a work permit after graduating, work permits are only issues for jobs relevant to your education and for a maximum of six years contiguously. If you change employers (or get laid off) you must find a new sponsor within 60 days. You pay social security during this time (my pet peeve)

Applied for a Green Card about 2 years after that - took 6 years. During this period one is not allowed to change companies (or jobs within the company unless they are very similar jobs, so normally cautious companys will not promote during this period)

If you try to get sponsored for a GC other than through your job i.e. as a dependent it takes longer.

I can't imagine what the process would be for a cook. Especially one with no formal education.

Also, shouldn't we all just move back to the "Measure of all things" thread where we belong? Instead of trapping unsuspecting visitors with our oh-so-fascinating thread title?

[Adam Balic]

Informed people don't make generalisations and expect that to be enough. And I'm guessing that would be the Western food press you are refering to. I notice that Bourdain didn't say that Thai people don't "get" cuisine for instance or that all that SE-Asian food could be improved by reducing the 'spicing' level.

Adam - To be informed you have to have a worldview of cuisine. The Thai people you are referring to do not have that worldview. They have a great cuisine, which takes advantages of the great techniques that are involved in Thai cooking. But the other perspective of the same cuisine is that it is limited on an overall basis because it is isolationist and only looks within itself. The cuisine doesn't improve. It is stagnant.

If you take the British chefs who have been at the forefront of modern British cuisine, people like Gary Rhodes and Paul Heathcote, what inspired them to raise the level of British cuisine is their experience of eating other cuisines outside of Britain. Go eat a roast chicken in France, or a veal stew in Italy and the clarity of flavors hits you in the face. Chefs do that and they go back to their own country and they say, how can I get my Bubble & Squeak or Sausage and Butter Beans to have the same clarity of flavors. And they improve the local cuisine because they adopt techniques they source elsewhere and they impose it on their own cuisines. All of a sudden they take the way the French prepare their beans for cassoulet and use it in Sausage and Beans and poof, the flavor is amazing.

This is the phenomenon that drives cuisine. From what I see, it is not happening in Thai cuisine at the moment, unless David Thompson is doing it. Nor is it happening in Indian cuisine outside of Tabla and Zaika and the others in that genre. But interesting cuisine, depends on this to happen over and over again.

Now this I can agree with. Although, without knowing the details of the cuisine in question, I think that 'stagnant' is a touch to strong .

Still doesn't mean that spices are a negative influence to refining the cuisine though.

[Wilfrid]

Also, shouldn't we all just move back to the "Measure of all things" thread where we belong? Instead of trapping unsuspecting visitors with our oh-so-fascinating thread title?

Since we're having the same conversation on most of the active threads, perhaps it doesn't matter much.

[chefzadi]

I'm for, sometimes, other times not.

I was thinking about posting a similar question about spices and I found this thread, although I wouldn't ask it as an "either or" proposition. But I'm obviously missing alot of the background information for why this thread was started.

Several people (well actually Steve P., but it is the same thing) have expressed the idea that many cultures cuisines are overly spiced. In European cooking spices were much used as a flavouring, to add interest to the food, rather then to cover the flavour of bad meat, however, they fell out of favour and are not commonly seen in savoury cooking. The period in which the use of spice disappeared in European cooking co-insides with the 'refinement' of European cuisine. The two may or may not be related.

Now it is the funky, groovy, 21st C. and we are all being exposed to the cuisine of cultures that weren't lucky enough to be refined (some of us are even from these countries!) and they sometimes use spice.

I like spice. I think that the spice can bring out other flavours in a particular ingredient, that is not necessarily the flavour of the spice or of the spiced ingredient. (eg. Cinnamon changes the flavour of tomato-based dishes, without making the dish taste of cinnamon).

The question is: Is the use of spice in savoury cooking a good thing or does it detract from the main event, which is the 'true flavour' of the base ingredient?

←

[eipi10]

I'm definitely for. I like both subtle foods and incredibly flavorful foods, but when I crave something, it's usually extremely spicy and complicated Asian foods. Sensory overload. I think people who don't make a conscious attempt to eat spicier foods are really missing out. Hot chilies add great depth of flavor, and for me their spiciness is a bit like "mouthfeel"--a vindaloo that doesn't burn is like a Bordeaux without tannins.

It's a question of whether you want to mentally attack the food in your mouth or if you want it to attack you. Top or bottom. Both are good. I hate "upscale" Asian places that spice everything down so I can concentrate on the subtle flavors of broccoli. Life needs variety.

[chefzadi]

Asian places that spice everything down so I can concentrate on the subtle flavors of broccoli. Life needs variety.

Isn't variety the s p i c e of life?

[liv4fud]

Asian places that spice everything down so I can concentrate on the subtle flavors of broccoli. Life needs variety.

Isn't variety the s p i c e of life?

←

good one!!

definitely for spice.

haven't read the entire thread so can't comment on the on going discussion. but definitely for spice!

[Adam Balic]

Boy is it fun to read your own two year old comments.

[Jinmyo]

Boy is it fun to read your own two year old comments.

←

Really? I hardly post anymore because if you just go to the first few pages of a long thread I've already said the few things I have to say and don't want people to have to endure my same old stuff again.

[Adam Balic]

No, not really. I read and I think 'who is that twat?' and damn it, that twat is me.