Spices: For or against?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Adam - Since what my original post pretty much said was that underspicing and overspicing are bad, and propely balanced spicing adds to the success of a dish, including the richness of the broth, I'm wondering why you are finding fault with that statement. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant?

Wilfrid - Well whether they use those techniques or not doesn't matter. Bouillabaisse is the only fish soup I know that employs those techniques. But if I have missed any, please list them.

[hollywood]

Wilfrid - Well whether they use those techniques or not doesn't matter. Bouillabaisse is the only fish soup I know that employs those techniques. But if I have missed any, please list them.

Steve,

How does BB vary from zarzuela? From cioppino?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Starining and the fish are cooked whole then fileted Cioppino is just a Zuppa di Pesce with crab from what I can remember. And Zarzuela, shellfish? Can't remember if they use fin fish. But straining? Neither one I believe.

[indiagirl]

Plotnicki, back to that other thread, where you belong

:)

Adam Balic, the reference I quoted a couple of pages ago, agrees with you about spicing - not used for preservation, that was the domain of salt, vinegar and oil. The wealthy probably ate fresher meat than we do today - apparently there were laws about this back then. The poor, most likely to be stuck with stale/bad meat, had no access to spices.

PS - The gestalt spice theory, in the meanwhile, is still where I'm at.

edited for clarity

Edited March 18, 2003 by indiagirl (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually another way it varies is that the rapid boiling (bouille) emulsifies the olive oil and the spices and gives the broth a certain texture. One that is only found as far as I can tell in French cuisine .

[Bux]

Starining and the fish are cooked whole then fileted  Cioppino is just a Zuppa di Pesce with crab from what I can remember. And Zarzuela, shellfish? Can't remember if they use fin fish. But straining? Neither one I believe.

Zarzuela, according to Marina Chang in Tastes of the Pyrenees, is taliored to either the chef's preferences in fish and seafood or to whatever is fresh. Zarzuela means operetta and every Catalan chef tried to dazzle diners with their compositions. It is, perhaps, not possible to have too great a combination of fish and seafood, assuming your taste runs that way.

[Adam Balic]

Adam - Since what my original post pretty much said was that underspicing and overspicing are bad, and propely balanced spicing adds to the success of a dish, including the richness of the broth, I'm wondering why you are finding fault with that statement. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant?

It's an issue of balance. I believe there is a direct correlation to the quality of the ingredients and the level of spicing applied

Actually, you said this. And it may be easier for people to understand what you are saying, if you understood the difference between "direct' and "inverse" correlations. What you said above is that the higher the level of spicing, the higher the quality of the [primary] ingredient. I'm sure you didn't mean that.

The problem I have with the statement is that you would consider only one culinary tradition to have successfully worked our proper 'balance' and evidence of this is either the "free market" or the opinions of people that eat in the 'best' restaurants in the world. Neither of these groups is in a position to judge "prope[r]ly balanced spicing", outside a particular context.

[Adam Balic]

Starining and the fish are cooked whole then fileted  Cioppino is just a Zuppa di Pesce with crab from what I can remember. And Zarzuela, shellfish? Can't remember if they use fin fish. But straining? Neither one I believe.

Zarzuela, according to Marina Chang in Tastes of the Pyrenees, is taliored to either the chef's preferences in fish and seafood or to whatever is fresh. Zarzuela means operetta and every Catalan chef tried to dazzle diners with their compositions. It is, perhaps, not possible to have too great a combination of fish and seafood, assuming your taste runs that way.

I have read that "Zarzuela" is named after the operetta (which in turn is named after a town of that name), so it is rather like "Peach Melba" (although not named after and individual, in the case of the soup/stew), rather then trying to be a culinary operetta?

[Adam Balic]

Oh, I know what the artical was trying to say. I just think that it is far to much of a long bow to draw, as salting and fermentation techniques are likely to be the main methods of preserving meat/fish even in hot countries, a significant contribution of anti-microbial spices in termss of natural selection on a human population is a very far fetched.

Well, how would you account for the fairly universal preference for spiced food (using the more general definition of "spice" to include herbs, onions and chiles)?

Well for instance the theroy could be in part correct, plant X indeed aids survival of a population that eats it (there are a few reports of Chimps eating ash to allow them to eat toxic plants for instance). Over time the part of the population that develop a taste for eating plant X are more 'fit' and wax and multiple and cover the earth. No problem with this, except that it is too general a theory.

Consider Plants Y and Z who taste similar to plant X, but have no 'aid survival properties'. If a populartion is selected for a taste in X they are also going to be selected for a taste in Y and Z, which do not aid survival.

Just because there may be a case of spice (ie. Onion and mint family really) acting as an antibacterial in a given popualtion doesn't mean that a different population uses completely un-related spices for the same reason. Or the same population uses different spices for that matter.

The universal taste for spices could be simply that present human populations have been sellected on the basis for a preference for eating members of the onion family, all other spices could just be 'onion analogues'.

Out of all the thousands of spice flavourings used by people I wonder how many actually are eaten in sufficient quantities to have a benificial effect? Plus this should be a universal phenomena if true, so were is the data from animal populations?

[JasonCampbell]

3) At least in England, the extensive use of spices became un-popular in a relatively short time period. People did not suddenly start dying.

4) Ditto, if spices were used to cover up the flavour of inferior meat etc, why then did the use of spices disapear in England, before any obvious change in the quality of meat? Must have been those French and there in-ability to taste inferior meat.

In medieval England spices were used to overcome the taste of heavily salted meat. People had a higher tolerance to salt ( based on the amounts recorded in recipes), so sticking half a pound of cinnamon into a bread sauce didn't seem as strange as it would today.

The peasants had little access to meat, and no access to spices, they used locally grown herbs as a flavouring. Meat and spice consumption was an indicator of rank.

The reason that spice consumption appears to quickly fall out of favour is quite complicated. Social upheaval led to the rise of the yeoman class, religious revolution and the discovery of the New World all contributed to the move away from looking to the east for inspiration. Also the agricultural revolution enabled the over wintering of meat, and this also increased cattle stocks, so making meat more available to the lower classes. As the need for preserving meat declined it was natural that the demand for spices declined. In reality spices were still used but in much lesser amounts as they no longer needed to overcome the extreme saltiness of the meat.

If you look at Victorian recipe books you see that the use of spices never left British cooking.

[Adam Balic]

Jason as far as I am aware, very few Medieval recipes actually state the amount of spice added to a particular recipe. In one example where amounts are mentioned (Goodman of Paris, see link) the amount of spice used is actually very low, considering the amount of food being prepared. In addition, medieval spice traders were unlikely to sell vacuum packed spices, so it is possible that my of the spices used were less pungent the we might think (Transportation of many spices would have taken months). From what I have seen of Medieval recipes, heavily salted meats were soaked or par-boiled to remove the salt. Irrespective of this, much of the meat was used fresh, not salted.

Spices have not left British cooking, but the types of spices used changes dramatically over time and the amounts used do too.

Goodman of Paris

edit: forgot link!

Edited March 18, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)

[Bux]

Zarzuela, according to Marina Chang in Tastes of the Pyrenees, is taliored to either the chef's preferences in fish and seafood or to whatever is fresh. Zarzuela means operetta and every Catalan chef tried to dazzle diners with their compositions. It is, perhaps, not possible to have too great a combination of fish and seafood, assuming your taste runs that way.

I have read that "Zarzuela" is named after the operetta (which in turn is named after a town of that name), so it is rather like "Peach Melba" (although not named after and individual, in the case of the soup/stew), rather then trying to be a culinary operetta?

Zarzuela refers to a type of performance, operettas being a lighter, livelier and I suppose more popular form of musical entertainment than opera. I believe the author was being poetic in her description of dish. Dishes such as "Peach Melba" or "Tournedos Rossini" were named after famous people. Some dishes are named after cities and places, and only sometimes because that's where they originated. Hollandaise sauce is not from Holland. Zarzuela de Mariscos was a 19th century invention and I suspect those who first named it found some connection to the popular art form. I don't know that, but it seems reasonable. If that's not the case, I suspect the author's description is based on conversations with contemporary Catalan chefs and their descriptions. It's quite possible that the originators of the dish sought only to honor the musical form by taking its name as in the case of Peach Melba, but even so, over time, chefs may have come to see the dish as an operetta of seafood.

[Steve Plotnicki]

The problem I have with the statement is that you would consider only one culinary tradition to have successfully worked our proper 'balance' and evidence of this is either the "free market" or the opinions of people that eat in the 'best' restaurants in the world. Neither of these groups is in a position to judge "prope[r]ly balanced spicing", outside a particular context.

Adam - Gee I didn't say this either. You are grabbing positions I've taken on other threads in different contexts and overlaying them on this thread.

I really do not believe there is a dispute about overspicing. I think there are two camps. Ethnic which overspices and modernized versions of those cuisines which have toned the spicing down. In reality, when you say the standard is different for different cuisines, you are just pointing to cuisines that have been isolationist for a long time, and they have developed local custom based on how they use indiginous ingredients. But once you view cuisine on a global basis, the same spicing routines can easily be described as out of balance or overspiced. And I will stick my neck out and say the following. As globalization spreads throughout the world, the trendline is moving towards my definition of balanced. And if you ate in restaurants as much as I do, you would realize that this is the case. At the highest level of cuisine (meaning the most expensive places,) spicing routines revolve around subtlety more and more each day.

[tommy]

ghee.

[Fat Guy]

And if you ate in restaurants as much as I do, you would realize that this is the case. At the highest level of cuisine (meaning the most expensive places,) spicing routines revolve around subtlety more and more each day.

Experience does not equal knowledge, wisdom, or judgment.

Subtle does not equal less. Subtlety can be expressed as complexity. What some perceive as overspicing because their palates are incapable of comprehension, others perceive as just right -- just as so many novice drinkers prefer wine coolers to dry table wines.

When is the last time you went to Asia, such that you feel comfortable making such proclamations?

[Tonyfinch]

Steve, again you are conceptualising the problem incorrectly. The issue is not about "overspicing" and "toned down spicing". It is about chefs and cooks who know and understand the role of spices and those who do not.

Unfortunately many of those who cook in High St Indian curry houses are not good cooks. They do not use fresh spices , they do not understand the role of masalas and they don't care either. They ladle in prepackaged pre ground curry powders which are often stale and add chlli powder to make dishes hotter for those who think that if its not burning their mouths then it can't be Indian food.

If you had eaten foods in the sub-continent prepared by dedicated and skilled cooks in you'd realise that they consider the appropriate spicing combinations for every dish and utilise spices in order to deepen and evoke the natural flavours of the food, to give the dishes "resonance" and depth, to add subtlety and "tints" to the dishes much as top European cooks use herbs and garlic and other seasonings. It is a myth that most "Indian" food is "hot" in the chilli sense, in some parts of the sub-comtinent spicing is definitely more pungent and lusty than in others (the Lahori/ Punjabi cuisine of New Tayyab, for example)

If a French chef overdoes it with the black pepper it's down to the fact that he's a bad chef, not that French cuisine "overpeppers". What we need in Indian restaurants are more professional and dedicated chefs who care about the food they produce and who are interested in showcasing authentic sub continental food to a clientele that respects the cuisine and wishes to show interested diners like yourself that the world of spicing has dimensions and posssibilities that they've never experienced before. Whether your particular culinary mind is open to it is a question only you can ask and answer for yourself.

Edited March 18, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Subtle does not equal less. Subtlety can be expressed as complexity. What some perceive as overspicing because their palates are incapable of comprehension, others perceive as just right -- just as so many novice drinkers prefer wine coolers to dry table wines.

I firmly believe that cuisine has been moving away from spicing being the key, to ingredients and their flavor being the key with spicing being secondary. It's the history of Western cuisine, and Asian cuisine where they could afford to eat this way (Japan.) So when you say that subtle can be defined as the balance within the spicing routine, you are just placing more emphasis on the importance of spicing to the overall outcome and giving it higher status. I believe, and it's evident if you look at popular Asian restaurants, they are adopting a globalized view of balanced spicing that is fairly consistant. Of course this refers to fine dining, not what the general populations eat day in and day out. So what the Thai population eats in their 90 degree daily climate isn't really relevant. But the Thai green curry that the rest of the world is going to eat (if they adopt that technique) is relevant.

Tony - I agree with you 100%. But I also firmly believe that as a practical matter what your post comes down to are Asian chefs using less spice in proportion to other ingredients.

[Wilfrid]

Why do we so often start off from false premises? First off, we should be more precise when discussing spices. Peppercorns are spices. Mustard is a spice. Vanilla is a spice. So are saffron, caraway and poppy seeds, and mace, all traditionally used in European cookery.

On this thread, I think "spice" is being used partly as a short-hand for the spices which we associate a little more with non-European traditions: cumin, coriander, etc; and partly as shorthand for heavy use of capsicum.

But however you use the term, there can be not a shadow of a doubt that spices are used more in high end European restaurants - especially French - today than they were in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. And you don't need to have eaten in such restaurants for the last forty years to know that. You just need to have studied a little bit of culinary history.

So can we not have a debate which launches off from a misapprehension please?

Edited March 18, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - I agree. What is at issue here is the western versus eastern way of balancing the spices in a dish.

[Wilfrid]

[Fat Guy]

I firmly believe that cuisine has been moving away from spicing being the key, to ingredients and their flavor being the key with spicing being secondary. It's the history of Western cuisine, and Asian cuisine where they could afford to eat this way (Japan.)

I firmly believe you're wrong. It's not a question of the "key." There's no conflict between ingredients and spices if spices are used well. It's a question of completeness. French cuisine has been incomplete for more than a century, due to its inability to embrace spices. Ditto for haute cuisine-type restaurants in most Western nations. But the recent trend has been towards remedying that incompleteness by integrating spices into the matrix. Because Western diners and chefs are unfamiliar with these flavors, they are being introduced tentatively, with little expertise or recognition. Michelin three-star and New York Times four-star chefs are using the equivalent of yellow curry powder from a supermarket tin, and spice-inexperienced Western consumers consider any hint of spice in haute cuisine to be radical. Most Westerners who do like spice think the be-all end-all is one-dimensional "hotness" like you'd get from hot pepper sauce. When you talk to Indian, Southeast Asian, etc., chefs, they view Western chefs and consumers as barbaric when it comes to spicing -- and they back that claim up with good arguments and a robust tradition of using spice in a balanced, complex, "subtle" manner. As the chefs and consumers get trained, their use of spices will inevitably increase. Chefs like Adria, Achatz, and Andres, whose stars are rising and who represent the future of cuisine, will continue to push the edge of the flavor envelope as far as their consumers let them. Even in Japan, you will see the Nobu-esque phenomenon of spice integration take hold more and more over time (as it has already started to do). That is the inexorable force of history, not vice-versa.

[Wilfrid]

Thanks, that's what I tried to say on the last page. Asian spicing techniques have been used increasingly by Western chefs in Europe, the States, Canada and Australia over the last ten to fifteen years. The trend is precisely the opposite to that identified by El Plotnicki. Surely we don't have to debate that?

[Fat Guy]

That's right, Wilfrid: It's the East leading the West right now. Western use of Eastern spices is not more subtle or more mature than Eastern -- it's just more primitive. Western chefs have a lot to learn.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well that's a different subject. I agree the complexity of the spicing routines will improve. But I do not think you will see a greater proportion of spices to other ingredients in the cuisine. And I think the balance you see at places like Nobu and Union Pacific is one that will hold. And heavily spiced cuisines like what you get at Diwan for example, or many Thai restaurants, that proportionality will be relegated to the ethnic cuisine category.

As for French restaurants integrating Asian spices, the biggest problem is they don't balance them properly. Read Robert Brown's review of Troisgros and how the entire room smelled of Mirin. Rocco DiSpirito balances those spices well, as does Passard at Arpege with his curry dish. But if French chefs use the same proportionality as Asian chefs, it screws up the food because you cannot taste whatever it is they are adding the spice to. That's why I see the trendline as being a westernized version of balance. No chef is going to shower his food with spicy green or red chiles because it screws up the food. But he/she would add a small amount to give a hint of heat.

[Wilfrid]

(I)f French chefs use the same proportionality as Asian chefs, it screws up the food because you cannot taste whatever it is they are adding the spice to.

Yes you can, if you have experience of eating highly spiced food.

No chef is going to shower his food with spicy green or red chiles because it screws up the food.

Not necessarily it doesn't.