Steak

[robyn]

This man is clearly an idiot.

I'm catching up on my reading. Just read the November 2003 issue of Elle Decor. Daniel Boulud has an article/recipe there for pot-au-feu. Calls for 4 6 oz. filet mignons - basically boiled in the pot-au-feu (for about 7 minutes - until they're done to medium).

So is Daniel Boulud an idiot (don't know - just asking - but it's easier to rag about some relatively unknown chef in the UK than Daniel Boulud)?

FWIW - I'd never take about $30 of filet mignons and boil them. Just a personal preference. Robyn

P.S. I have to apologize that I said that Thomas Keller's dishes were never mentioned in Elle Decor. They get one line in this issue. But the pictures of Raynaud/Limoges dishes in the quarter page article don't include his.

[tommy]

So is Daniel Boulud an idiot (don't know - just asking - but it's easier to rag about some relatively unknown chef in the UK than Daniel Boulud)?

i'm guessing the answer is "yes", if he says:

1)Rib eye is just a disgraceful, scrappy, chewy, over-rated meat.

and

2) all the top restaurants should serve fillet steak because it is the king of meat and no other cut can get close to toppling its crown.

i somehow doubt that Boulud says either.

Edited February 21, 2004 by tommy (log)

[rlibkind]

Tommy says it all!

[robyn]

...and I was just trying (and failing) to bait Bourdain, anyway...

Sorry you didn't catch a bigger fish than me. Perhaps I will succeed with the article where Daniel Boulud recommends boiling filet mignon. Robyn

[robyn]

...but running a restaurant outside London has its own problems such as the flow of trade and finding staff...

Talk about finding customers! As a "Yank" who has been a regular visitor to the UK over the course of the last 30 years - I am surprised that a restaurant like this (whether it's an experiment that fails or succeeds) even exists in Manchester. It's easy to try this in London - or a high end resort outside of London - but in Manchester????? It would be like trying to run an Adria-type restaurant in Cleveland.

Heck - even when a chef who does this type of cooking tries to run a place in a reasonably sophisticated city in the US - like Miami (La Broche) - it doesn't work. So I say more power to the chef. This type of cuisine isn't my favorite - but I'm sure that its best points will eventually work (if they haven't already) their way into the mainstream. And we'll all be better off for it. Robyn

[robyn]

Thenks, lala. Ferran Adria is obviously a talented and successful guy, but the foam thing is strange.

Actually - the foam thing is about the least strange thing. And it has worked its way into the mainstream. When I had dinner at the Ritz Carlton in Atlanta last summer - the classically trained French chef there did some fabulous things with foam. I'm not sure you'll ever find it at Burger King - but there are even chefs in Jacksonville FL (where I live) working with it now. Robyn

[robyn]

So is Daniel Boulud an idiot (don't know - just asking - but it's easier to rag about some relatively unknown chef in the UK than Daniel Boulud)?

i'm guessing the answer is "yes", if he says:

1)Rib eye is just a disgraceful, scrappy, chewy, over-rated meat.

and

2) all the top restaurants should serve fillet steak because it is the king of meat and no other cut can get close to toppling its crown.

i somehow doubt that Boulud says either.

So you don't object to boiling a filet mignon? Robyn

[robyn]

Tommy says it all!

So what's your opinion about boiling filet mignon? Robyn

P.S. The smoking stuff is - as people have suggested - off topic - so I'll stick to discussing meat.

[tommy]

So is Daniel Boulud an idiot (don't know - just asking - but it's easier to rag about some relatively unknown chef in the UK than Daniel Boulud)?

i'm guessing the answer is "yes", if he says:

1)Rib eye is just a disgraceful, scrappy, chewy, over-rated meat.

and

2) all the top restaurants should serve fillet steak because it is the king of meat and no other cut can get close to toppling its crown.

i somehow doubt that Boulud says either.

So you don't object to boiling a filet mignon? Robyn

i haven't given it any thought. i'm not sure why you'd imply one or the other. what's your point?

[robyn]

So is Daniel Boulud an idiot (don't know - just asking - but it's easier to rag about some relatively unknown chef in the UK than Daniel Boulud)?

i'm guessing the answer is "yes", if he says:

1)Rib eye is just a disgraceful, scrappy, chewy, over-rated meat.

and

2) all the top restaurants should serve fillet steak because it is the king of meat and no other cut can get close to toppling its crown.

i somehow doubt that Boulud says either.

So you don't object to boiling a filet mignon? Robyn

i haven't given it any thought. i'm not sure why you'd imply one or the other. what's your point?

The point is simply that a bunch of Yanks are willing to jump all over a little known British chef who dares to say a bad word about a piece of meat they like and the way they cook it (as opposed to what he likes - and the way he likes to cook it). On the other hand - all of you seem to have your tongues stapled in your mouths when it comes to criticizing a famous US chef who publishes a recipe which calls for boiling a filet mignon.

Like I've said - I'm not much of a beef eater - but I do cook it for company. And I think if I served my company boiled filet mignon - they'd have me Baker Acted the next day (that's legal shorthand for throwing me in a psychiatric ward).

So I'd like at least a hint of consistency here (or is consistency the hobgoblin of small minds)? Or a straight answer. Everyone here has strong points of view about what this chef said about steak. So who's in favor of boiling a filet mignon - and who's opposed? Robyn

[tommy]

So I'd like at least a hint of consistency here (or is consistency the hobgoblin of small minds)?  Or a straight answer.  Everyone here has strong points of view about what this chef said about steak.  So who's in favor of boiling a filet mignon - and who's opposed?  Robyn

this thread isn't about boulud or his suggestion that boiling tenderloin might be a good idea in some applications. the comments to which you're referring are in reference to the 2 points i quoted above. this isn't about "yanks" bashing a "UK" chef no matter how much you try to make it the case.

if you'd like to start a new thread on boiling tenderloin, i'm sure some tongues will become unstapled on that particular topic. but it's not terribly relevant here.

Edited February 21, 2004 by tommy (log)

[edsel]

This man is clearly an idiot.

I'm catching up on my reading. Just read the November 2003 issue of Elle Decor. Daniel Boulud has an article/recipe there for pot-au-feu. Calls for 4 6 oz. filet mignons - basically boiled in the pot-au-feu (for about 7 minutes - until they're done to medium).

So is Daniel Boulud an idiot (don't know - just asking - but it's easier to rag about some relatively unknown chef in the UK than Daniel Boulud)?

FWIW - I'd never take about $30 of filet mignons and boil them. Just a personal preference. Robyn.

Robyn, I think "poached" is a nicer word than "boiled". If Boulud recommends boiling filet mignon he must be pursuing a rather unique, um, texture.

And yes, I have poached beef tenderloin in bouillon. I've also steamed it. Les idiotic than it sounds!

As for Chef Kitching's beef recipe, it sounds interesting. I'd certainly reserve judgment until I tried it myself. However, calling rib-eye "disgraceful" is just silly. Bourdain, is that what you were referring to when you called him an idiot? Or was it the vague mutterings about the blood-dispersal thing?

"Look, there's a flying saucer!!"

You forgot to post the picture.

[Mabelline]

Ummmmm...the camera lens cover was on......

[jhlurie]

So I'd like at least a hint of consistency here (or is consistency the hobgoblin of small minds)?  Or a straight answer.  Everyone here has strong points of view about what this chef said about steak.  So who's in favor of boiling a filet mignon - and who's opposed?  Robyn

this thread isn't about boulud or his suggestion that boiling tenderloin might be a good idea in some applications. the comments to which you're referring are in reference to the 2 points i quoted above. this isn't about "yanks" bashing a "UK" chef no matter how much you try to make it the case.

if you'd like to start a new thread on boiling tenderloin, i'm sure some tongues will become unstapled on that particular topic. but it's not terribly relevant here.

tommy, I think talk about boiling tenderloin is an acceptible level of meandering, if robyn has specific points which relate back to existing discussion in this thread. As for the issue of "yanks bashing UK chefs", I think we can entertain it as a general concept, but the moment it turns personal it's inappropriate (yes, folks that is a warning). "Yanks" (what a crappy word) may have different tastes than Brits--I don't think it's inherently offensive to suggest that. And summoning the spirit of Boulud would seem to be okay, because who's to say that HE'S necessarily right just because he's more famous? Okay, robyn IS saying that, but it doesn't mean that we have to believe it.

[tommy]

tommy, I think talk about boiling tenderloin is an acceptible level of meandering, if robyn has specific points which relate back to existing discussion in this thread.

you mean to say it's germane if she's making sense when she brings it up. i think i understand. it just seemed so, you know, out of context.

Edited February 21, 2004 by tommy (log)

[robyn]

Robyn, I think "poached" is a nicer word than "boiled". If Boulud recommends boiling filet mignon he must be pursuing a rather unique, um, texture.

And yes, I have poached beef tenderloin in bouillon. I've also steamed it. Les idiotic than it sounds!

As for Chef Kitching's beef recipe, it sounds interesting. I'd certainly reserve judgment until I tried it myself. However, calling rib-eye "disgraceful" is just silly. Bourdain, is that what you were referring to when you called him an idiot? Or was it the vague mutterings about the blood-dispersal thing?

"Look, there's a flying saucer!!"

You forgot to post the picture.

Agree totally. Poached is a much better word - although most of us would look a little askance if we saw "poached filet" on a menu . On the other hand - the conventional rules of cooking meat developed in societies less affluent than ours. You broiled/grilled/roasted the better cuts because they tasted good that way. And you braised/long cooked at low heat the lesser cuts to make them edible.

But we are more affluent now - which is why DB can put foie gras in a burger. In less affluent times - that would have been considered a scandalous waste of foie gras. So if he can put foie gras in a burger - why not poach a filet? (Note that I've liked his food the couple of times I've eaten it - in New York - and Palm Beach - so I'm mentioning it to make a point - not to criticize his cooking).

Perhaps a poached filet wouldn't be my favorite. When I eat beef - which isn't that often - I'm kind of partial to those lesser cuts - like short ribs - because the braising tends to do incredible things to the meat and the sauce in the hands of the right chef (the short ribs at Le Cirque 2000 were to die for). And because I don't cook beef at home that often (I've only cooked a whole tenderloin of beef once) - I'd probably be reluctant to poach a filet. But if you're a 4 times a week beef eater - why not try it (if you have the money)? I guess the only point I was trying to make is that unless you're willing to condemn DB - you shouldn't utter a lot of expletives about the chef at Juniper (unless you've actually tried his cooking and hated it).

By the way - I do cook ribeye at home - for company. On the BBQ. It is a very fatty beefy cut that seems to appeal to people who really like steak. Crusts up nicely because of the fat. I really can't imagine making it indoors without a really super exhaust system (it throws off a huge amount of smoke when you're cooking it). Robyn

[tommy]

I really can't imagine making it indoors without a really super exhaust system (it throws off a huge amount of smoke when you're cooking it).

i make ribeye (usually a max of 2) indoors all of the time with a crappy exhaust. try it. it works.

[Bux]

you shouldn't utter a lot of expletives about the chef at Juniper (unless you've actually tried his cooking and hated it).

Someone asked why Adria was applauded and the chef at Juniper treated with disdain. Robyn's comment above is apt. Plenty of people here have had a good laugh at the idea some of us would pay good money, not to mention make a special trip just to eat that food. Most of those people have never eaten at El Bulli, just as most of those who make fun of the food at Juniper don't know how it tastes.

Most of the early posters restricted themselves to commenting on how they like beef, which is legitimate to a point, as long as there's room for other opinion and they are open to the possibility that cooked another way might be both interesting and tasty as a change, if not a steady diet. Those who dismiss his cooking outright without experience are hardly worth my time to read.

On the other hand, if I were to limit my comments to the opening quote which I've read and not to all the dishes on the menu which I've not tasted, there's a likelihood, I could support the idiot label because said chef manages to put down everyone else's way of cooking steak and say some pretty challengable things. Still the proof of his technique would lie in the tasting of it and not in the text.

[tommy]

Those who dismiss his cooking outright without experience are hardly worth my time to read.

apparently some posters must have read this into the posts along the way. i haven't really noticed any of this, with the exception of some fun jabs at an odd-sounding menu.

[Suzanne F]

Bux, can you really say that statements like

But not all beef is good. Rib eye is just a disgraceful, scrappy, chewy, over-rated meat. It’s a cut cheap restaurants use so they can say they’ve got steak on the menu. But, in my opinion, all the top restaurants should serve fillet steak because it is the king of meat and no other cut can get close to toppling its crown.

do not invite, nay BEG for, an equally vehement response? If that's not throwing down the gauntlet, what is?

I don't believe any of us who have not tasted it "dismiss[ed] his cooking outright" -- I certainly feel I did not. Many did react with skepticism at items like "Cough Medicine Sorbet." Don't tell me that you did not at least flinch a bit at the thought.

What I did dismiss was his snottily superior statements about the relative merits of cuts of beef, and his outright misinformation about the makeup of the cut he so loves. (Just to remind you, there is NOT, nor should there be, intramuscular blood. Nor does any cut of beef need to have its nutrients "put back.") And I still believe that anyone who presents his or her food on paper in a manner seemingly designed to shock the diner (spaghetti puree? isn't that the same as Chef Boyardee?), rather than in a manner that educates the diner to his or her aims, deserves any negative reactions generated.

I was a bit too young for Abstract Expressionism, but I gave Op and Pop a full chance, as I have many other movements since. The same with performance art -- dance, drama, and music. But the moment an artist, performer, or musician shows open hostility to my sensibilities without learning what they might be, I find myself more likely to skeptical of his/her value. Thus it is with this chef. He hit first.

[Bux]

Bux, can you really say that statements like

But not all beef is good. Rib eye is just a disgraceful, scrappy, chewy, over-rated meat. It’s a cut cheap restaurants use so they can say they’ve got steak on the menu. But, in my opinion, all the top restaurants should serve fillet steak because it is the king of meat and no other cut can get close to toppling its crown.

do not invite, nay BEG for, an equally vehement response? If that's not throwing down the gauntlet, what is?

What I said was

if I were to limit my comments to the opening quote which I've read ..., there's a likelihood, I could support the idiot label because said chef manages to put down everyone else's way of cooking steak and say some pretty challengable things.

So I'm not defending those comments against the charge of idiocy. I'm just wondering what else he had to say for himself. Let's note that the chef didn't post those comments here on eGullet. There were taken from another text and reposted here. I don't know the original context, so I'm less eager to call him an idiot until I learn more about what he has to say in greater context. I've had some fine rib eye and I'm not about to eliminate it from my diet, nor am I about to tell top restaurants what they should serve. The man's entitled to his opinion, though I'd argue he's best off not telling other chefs what to serve. I've always thought filet was the queen of steaks anyway, but basically I'm not a steak man.

I will grant that his statements on beef, as quoted, sound both snotty and misinformed. Will you grant that I've not said you dismissed his cooking outright. One of the things I was objecting to in my post was the reading more into a brief text than is there.

tommy, it's been noted before that I have little sense of humor when I think people are poking fun at that which they don't understand. From the early days of nouvelle cuisine to the menu items at the Fat Duck and El Bulli, I've had a lot of dishes that have funny and self depricating names. I've been able to laugh with the chefs. I assume those who like to poke harmless fun at odd sounding menus are not offended that I don't find them worth reading. Apparently we have different perspectives on food and food jokes. That's what makes eGullet such a rich place. In the meantime we all define ourselves and our perspectives on the site with each post we make. I believe it enables others to understand our posts better.

[Jonathan Day]

I haven't dined at Juniper, though I've been to Altrincham. But I wonder whether some posters are misinterpreting an ironic turn in Kitching's menu. Irony is a peculiar and local vice over here, like queueing or the unspeakable things done in public schools. It is often a stumbling block to foreigners. Just a passing thought. Please carry on.

[John Whiting]

Jonathan's observation is, I think, crucial. Irony is an intrinsic part of British self-promotion -- it allows you to blow your own horn while at the same time admitting that it may be just a lot of hot air.

[Bux]

Ah, the old two countries separated by a common language thing.

To clarify something I said above, when someone says something that, on the face of it, appears to be an idiotic statement, all that I can discern is that the statement appears to be idiotic. I can't truly be sure the person making that statement is really an idiot. Sometimes, intelligent people make mistakes or get carried away and make idiotic statements. It's also possible someone will go out on a limb and take some thought to an idiotically absurd point just to get attention or free publicity. Should that free publicity result in increased business, the "idiot" may be less idiotic than I might have thought. Another alternative that I can't dismiss is, as suggested by Day and Whiting, who have learned to live and perhaps thrive among the English, that I often miss the irony of Englishmen using my language.

[tommy]

tommy, it's been noted before that I have little sense of humor...  

and i try to point that out as often as possible.

I assume those who like to poke harmless fun at odd sounding menus are not offended that I don't find them worth reading. Apparently we have different perspectives on food and food jokes.

so i'm assuming the comments on his cough syrup menu must be the dismissal of his cooking outright? ok then.

methinks a few people took the assertion that the man is an "idiot" a bit too seriously.

Edited February 22, 2004 by tommy (log)