Personal Taste

[LaNiña]

I don't think anybody's disagreeing with a business' right to determine what it offers. Of course it has that "right." We're talking about whether or not there exists an objective good/bad, right/wrong where food preparation is concerned.

[Jaymes]

I don't think anybody's disagreeing with a business' right to determine what it offers.  Of course it has that "right."  We're talking about whether or not there exists an objective good/bad, right/wrong where food preparation is concerned.

Which gets us back to the question posed in the "palate" thread. Of course, that's all subjective and is, as you stated in your earlier post, a question with no answer. It's like which color is prettier: purple or turquoise?

But back in the beginning of THIS thread, I understood the question to be whether or not the chef "ought" to have to cook good steaks well done, even knowing they would taste inferior, if that was what the customer wanted... going on the theories of "it's the customer's money" and "the customer is always right."

[LaNiña]

Ah, ok. Well I suppose in part it's economically driven. A chef may loathe the idea of making shoe-leather steak, but he/she doesn't want to lose a customer...

...but I believe Steve's contention is that there *is* an objective standard of good/bad, right/wrong in food preparation. I'm not sure, myself.

[Fat Guy]

The right of a business to determine what it offers is subject to numerous limitations in the United States. For example, in some parts of America I've been informed that it is illegal for restaurants to offer hamburgers cooked to less than medium-well. In most places restaurants are required by law to provide tap water upon request. And of course you can't refuse service to a customer on account of race, etc.

The United States is without a doubt more free-wheeling, individualistic, and capitalistic than any country in Europe, yet you will be hard pressed to find a fine-dining restaurant in the United States where a request for well-done beef will be flat-out refused. European restaurants are in my experience far more likely to invoke this particular principle of capitalism.

[Jaymes]

Ah, ok.  Well I suppose in part it's economically driven.  A chef may loathe the idea of making shoe-leather steak, but he/she doesn't want to lose a customer...

...but I believe Steve's contention is that there *is* an objective standard of good/bad, right/wrong in food preparation.  I'm not sure, myself.

Again, speaking as a former business owner, when someone insists you sell them something you would prefer not to, what happens is that of the people who order the shoeleather, many will not be happy with it, and will go around complaining to everyone they know that they went to your supposedly "fine" restaurant and simply couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

In the short run, okay, you get the business, but in the long run... it usually costs you... in many ways, both financially and in job satisfaction.

You just can't be all things to all people.

[Jaymes]

The right of a business to determine what it offers is subject to numerous limitations in the United States. For example, in some parts of America I've been informed that it is illegal for restaurants to offer hamburgers cooked to less than medium-well. In most places restaurants are required by law to provide tap water upon request. And of course you can't refuse service to a customer on account of race, etc.

Of course there are legal and other restrictions (such as zoning, etc.) that influence what one chooses to sell.

For purposes of this argument, I didn't feel the need to delinate that.

[Jaymes]

but he/she doesn't want to lose a customer...

And you know Nina, I'll tell you another thing I learned from years of business....

The idea of "losing a customer".....

Especially in a consulting-type business, where you want your customers to rely on your judgment... you don't want those customers who always think they know more than you do. They are never worth more to your bottom line than they cost you in time and aggravation.

You want long-term customers who value you and what you do and who take your advice and opinion.

They are a joy to work with and for, and a financial boon, and they love you and what you do and recommend you to others.

Those are the customers with whom you want to cultivate a longterm relationship. The other kind of person who thinks you simply don't know what you are doing is a customer you are better off without.

[Fat Guy]

Have you ever operated a restaurant, though? Because as I've explained above the advice you're dispensing is at odds with the procedure in virtually every successful restaurant in America.

[Jaymes]

Have you ever operated a restaurant, though? Because as I've explained above the advice you're dispensing is at odds with the procedure in virtually every successful restaurant in America.

No, I have never operated a restaurant, but I've sure eaten in a lot of them.

And, I sometimes ask for something to be prepared a certain way, or order something not on the menu.

And often the chef will do his/her best to prepare it how I have requested, but just as often, I'll be told that they do not have those ingredients, or the kitchen is busy, or that they are unaccustomed to that dish, or even the much less classy, "no substitutions."

I don't get offended....unless they are haughty and unkind about it.

If I ordered the "Seared Tempura Tuna" to be cooked well done (as a companion did recently at a local restaurant), and was told (as was she) "That dish does only comes rare," I would do what she did....order something else.

I don't expect the kitchen and staff to be my personal servants, as though I, like Oprah, had hired them to do nothing but my bidding to the exclusion of all else.

[Jaymes]

Oh, but I did, for years, operate a successful catering business...

I recall one particular conversation wherein I had suggested a "Shrimp Scampi Style" dish to the client.

She asked what was in it, and when I told her, she said, "Oh...I don't like garlic, can you just leave it out?"

To which I said, "Well, without the garlic it doesn't really have much taste... may I suggest the Salmon Balls instead?"

She decided that was better, and we were all happy.

[LaNiña]

I owned a jewelry business for 7 years. Believe you me, I know from customer manipulation. The bottom line is money. Money, money, money.

[Jaymes]

Just one more comment, and then I absolutely MUST go prepare my Snapper Veracruzano or we'll have no dinner at all my house tonight, properly prepared or not...

In the matter of restaurants refusing to cook steaks well-done, in fact, lately I have even seen it printed on the menus!

"Because we cannot ensure the quality, we do not prepare steaks well-done."

Or some such something...

But it's printed right there, on the menu, below the steaks, so no one has to even get into a quibble with the waiters.

[Jaymes]

I owned a jewelry business for 7 years.  Believe you me, I know from customer manipulation.  The bottom line is money.  Money, money, money.

And of course, that's the crux, isn't it.

Had my client said, "Look, I'll give you a thousand bucks extra if you'll just fix the damn shrimp without the garlic," I'd have said, "Sure, Darlin' and would you like me to get down on my knees and feed them to you one by one?"

So, I guess it's the age-old question.... we know what we are.....and now we're just arguing over the price.

(But also....I would have gone running around the party, saying to all the guests, "You know, that shrimp is SO MUCH BETTER with garlic in it.")

[LaNiña]

heheh.

[spqr]

Spqr - Of course there isn't anything wrong with it. But it happens to taste bad that way. What we are really talking about is semantics and the use of the "W" word. There is an incongruity between chef and diner because there is a proper way to serve a steak yet many diners refuse to acknowledge the point. It's the visceral as oppossed to cerebral way of looking at food. While your aunt can certainly state she likes burnt to a crisp better, I can't imagine she can fashion an rational argument as to why.

Steve:

My point was that "taste" i s subjective. My aunt does not require a reason, "rational" or other wise to prefer her steak cooked to death. She does not care what you or I think about her preference. When she goes to a restaurant I believe she is entitled to have the food she orders cooked as she likes it. The cook's (okay, the chef's) job is to cook the damn food and shut up about aesthetics. He can write what he thinks about how food should be cooked in his cookbook. IMHO

This raises another, broader issue that bugs me: restaurants as temples and chefs as priests of cuisine. While dining at a posh place is always a treat I never lose sight of the fact that I'm the paying customer and the restaurant exists to serve me, not the other way around. Life is much simpler (and better) this way.

[macrosan]

I have tried steak 'bleu', I don't like it, I won't eat it because I don't like it.

Now if a chef insists on serving his steak bleu, is he right ? Or am I right to walk out of his restaurant ?

And where does this sit in the scale of "there is a proper way to serve a steak" ?

[Jaymes]

My point was that "taste" i s subjective. My aunt does not require a reason, "rational" or other wise to prefer her steak cooked to death. She does not care what you or I think about her preference. When she goes to a restaurant I believe she is entitled to have the food she orders cooked as she likes it. The cook's (okay,  the chef's) job is to cook the damn food and shut up about aesthetics. He can write what he thinks about how food should be cooked in his cookbook. IMHO

This raises another, broader issue that bugs me: restaurants as temples and chefs as priests of cuisine. While dining at a posh place is always a treat I never lose sight of the fact that I'm the paying customer and the restaurant exists to serve me, not the other way around. .

You are correct that your aunt has the right to have the food she orders cooked as she likes it. She can exercise that right by patronizing a restaurant that will do it that way.

She NOT have a right to DEMAND that every single business person concurs with her every request, no matter how unpalatable. She simply doesn't. But if enough people agree with her tastes, the business will either close, or change its ways to suit her and others like her.

And furthermore, the chef does not "exist to serve you." That is ludicrous.

If you wish to have a chef who "exists to serve you," you are perfectly free to hire one. Put him on salary, tell him what you like and do not like and advise him that he serves at the pleasure of you.

But to believe that you can order business owners around in order to satisfy your every whim is unbelievably arrogant.

I just hope that in another life, you come back as a business owner with nothing but customers like yourself.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Spqr - Well personal taste might be subjective but "taste" isn't. Almost all things have standards that apply to them. Clothing, music, food, furniture. The world doesn't operate in a free-for-all of personal taste. There is an amazing amount of agreement as to what good taste is. Your aunt's preference for overcooked meat has nothing to do with taste. There isn't a single restaurant reviewer in the world that would say that overcooked meat tastes good. She's just saying she likes it that way. It tastes good to her, but it doesn't "taste" good. Gee I wish they used two different words.

Jaymes raised the issue of the integrity of the product. Whether it be the product itself, or a chef's pride in his/her work. A business always reserves the right to refuse to serve it the way the customers want. Personally I happen to disagree with this because I think that a restaurant is in the service business and they should make people happy. But I think that making people happy is a completely independant concept from one that says that people should be educated how to eat their meal "the right way."

Macrosan - I can't say that "bleu" is the right way, although I think it falls in the acceptable range depending on the cut. But if a chef insists on serving a steak bleu to me when I want it cooked more, I would ask for the rational and I would go with the program about 75% of the time. Look I eat steak rare but hanger steak is better medium rare. And I know that because some restaurant recommended I have it that way and they were right.

[cakewalk]

Now if a chef insists on serving his steak bleu, is he right ? Or am I right to walk out of his restaurant ?

You're both "right," from your respective subjective points of view. But the chef will lose a customer and be disgruntled, and you will go hungry and be disgruntled. So what's the point in being "right"? Yes, the chef will have other customers who will eat things as he sees fit, and you can get a good meal elsewhere, cooked to your liking. And you will each always be "right," forever. Just like in this thread, where we are each "right." I mean, is anyone really expecting to change anyone else's opinion on this? (My own opinion, BTW: screw the chef, I'll eat as I please.)

I think grillboy had it right back on page one. But it's been interesting!

[schaem]

I think my feelings on the issue are best illustrated by an anecdote:

We had a party booked one night and the menu the hostess had selcted was appetizer: Tuna Tartare entree: choice of Steak or Halibut. She called the morning of the party and asked is the Tuna Tartare could be cooked, please. The party co-ordinator asked me and I said, "No, perhaps you should sell her something else." She did, and when the party sat I told the meat cook to cook all of the steaks medium and the fish cook to cook all of the fish through. I considered the Halibut to be overcooked and "incorrect", but probably what the party wanted. I also considered the cooking of the Tartare to be wrong and impossible, so the hostess had to compromise with me. Yes, my job is to give the customer what they want (compromise on the Halibut) but it is also my job to educate the customer in some way (people who dine in restaurants should know that Tartare cannot be cooked).

[Jaymes]

A restaurant is in the service business and they should make people happy. But I think that making people happy is a completely independant concept from one that says that people should be educated how to eat their meal "the right way."

Steve -

You are absolutely correct that anyone in the service industry SHOULD strive to make people happy. Happy customers are the undisputed direct route to financial security and job satisfaction for any business. That goes without saying... too simple and obvious a concept to even be worthy of argument.

And you are also correct in pointing out that making people "happy" is not necessarily the same as "educating them" or forcing them to eat whatever you want them to eat. Although if one is capable of doing just that in a pleasant manner, all the problems are solved.

But it seemed to me that the focus of this thread is not so much what chef/owners SHOULD do; but rather, what they are OBLIGATED to do....

...as in the odious remark that "they exist to serve me."

[jaybee]

Not in a democracy. People have the right to remain ignorant.

A new Miranda warning:

"You have the right to remain ignorant. Anything you eat may be taken down and used in evidence against you."

Suppose someone orders a steak medium rare, and it comes out perfectly medium rare. Then they pick up the salt shaker and empty it on top of the steak. Then they complain to the waiter that the steak is too salty. Is that the same as Adam's situation, except they committed the "crime" with their own hands instead of asking the chef to do it?

[Fat Guy]

Okay, so a restaurateur has the right to say no to a request for a well-done steak -- most of us have agreed on this since page one. But does that make it right to say no? Just because something is a right doesn't mean it's right to exercise that right. I think there are really several issues:

1) Does the restaurateur/chef have the right to say no? (Yes.)

2) Is it right for the restaurateur/chef to say no? (Open for discussion.)

3) Is it good business for the restaurateur/chef to say no? (In the case of a request for well-done steak, I can't see how it is.)

4) Issues regarding the nature of steak: How is it that all gourmets agree that well-done steak is bad? Is it just a rule we've all agreed to, or does it make actual sense? Are there any advantages at all to a well-done steak? Can there ever be a legitimate culinary reason for requesting one (as opposed to a legitimate non-culinary reason such as a weakened immune system)? It is possible for a chef to make a cooked-through steak that tastes great?

[spqr]

And furthermore, the chef does not "exist to serve you."  That is ludicrous. 

If you wish to have a chef who "exists to serve you," you are perfectly free to hire one.  Put him on salary, tell him what you like and do not like and advise him that he serves at the pleasure of you.

But to believe that you can order business owners around in order to satisfy your every whim is unbelievably arrogant.

I just hope that in another life, you come back as a business owner with nothing but customers like yourself.

Spoken like a true primadonna.

The arrogance here is the cook demanding 1) to know better and 2) demanding that all his paying customers tow the cook's line.

True, all of us are free to patronize establishments that give us good service and free also not to patronize a second time establishments that give you nothing but attitude. But this is beside the point. So is the accusation that people like my aunt make rude and unreasonable demands of cooks in restaurants. Perhaps there are people who do this, but my aunt, and I too for that matter, are not like that. The discussion was about ordering a steak cooked to the patron's preference and how "right" or "wrong" this is if the personal preference is other than the textbook "correct" way to cook a piece of steak. I simply maintain that it should be no big deal for any but the haughtiest, full-of-himself cook to provide what is requested.

As for myself, I don't go to restaurants to worship the food or the cook. I go to have a pleasant meal, sometimes if I'm lucky an astounding meal, and to sample foods that I wouldn't or couldn't cook for myself. All the rest is basically nonsense.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - All good questions but isn't the key question at what temperature does a steak taste best? And I've already cited an example where medium rare is better than rare. So context has a lot to do with it. Look at veggies. I like them cooked somewhat al dente but when making a ratatouille, mushy and jamlike is the way to go.

"How is it that all gourmets agree that well-done steak is bad? Is it just a rule we've all agreed to, or does it make actual sense?"

Well I would argue it is similar to determining when a peach is ripe or when French Fries are cooked properly. Cooked through steak doesn't necessarily taste bad, it just taste dry and less good than a properly cooked steak.