Appetizers Better than Entrees

[Varmint]

Member detlefchef raised an interesting point in a discussion about Durham, NC's Magnolia Grill, which is known for its creative complexity of flavors. He agreed with another member that he prefers the appetizers over the entrees at Magnolia Grill, stating:

I wanted to comment on something Brian mentioned regarding the Apps being better than the entrees. I tend to find that is pretty often the case with places that serve particularly inventive cuisine. That is, in fact, why those who take things to the next level like T Keller of French Laundry, and D Kinch of Manresa like tasting menus. Truly avant garde cuisine simply doesn't lend itself well to large portions because the novelty wears off after a few bites. Honestly, that is my fundamental issue with that type of cuisine. Long on whimsy and short on true satisfaction. Like a drug, the first taste is extraordinary, but you find yourself longing for that feeling again, needing an entirely new dish to find it. A well made cassoulet, on the other hand, like a good bottle of wine is tasty all the way until you scrape the last bits of duck fat soaked bread crumbs off the edge of your bowl.

Any truth to this? What would Grant Achatz have to say about this? Or Paula Wolfert?

[Fat Guy]

I see it as akin to the development of most any art form, such as the development of painting from representational to impressionistic to abstract. Food is, at the beginning, about nourishment. At some point, somebody figures out ways to make it taste good in addition to being nourishing. Then we get to dishes that simulate nourishment but are really about flavor. And finally we get into pure flavor. When you're dealing in pure flavor -- dishes that have nothing to do with nourishment and are purely for intellectual enjoyment -- there's no reason to have more than a few bites. The enjoyment and fulfillment of a large portion of cassoulet comes not from sustained intellectual interest but, rather, from its nourishing, hearty, rustic aspect. Without that aspect, small plates are best.

There's another factor at work as well. A small plate allows for more risk-taking. The observation that appetizers are more interesting and creative than entrees holds true not only at particularly creative restaurants but also -- perhaps even more so in some cases -- at restaurants that are not all that creative. In your basic uncreative restaurant, the problem is that most every entree will be structurally the same: a large piece of animal protein with a sauce, accompanied by some number of vegetable and starch garnishes. Appetizers, however, are not held hostage by that piece of protein. They can come as soups, wraps, rolls, salads, piles, parfaits, whatever -- and it doesn't require much in the way of creativity to make them interesting; you just have to read some magazines.

[Wendy DeBord]

I'd like to mention why this is so from my perspective working in kitchens, although admittedly not starred fine dinning kitchens.

Cooks get bored and careless making the same entree's night after night. Rarely do they taste the main entree's after they've been established, they believe that they know the item inside out after making it for so long. They may/can/and often do loose focus as they cook up that item. It becomes a factor that divides the really good chef/cooks from the average. It's not always cooking skill........it's the ability/skill to focus intently on the same thing day in and day out, hour by hour, minute by minute...........with-out loosing focus. Very few people have this skill, chef or not.

Where as app.'s usually change more often then entree's so they maybe less boring to the cook. The cook/chef may have participated in creating the app. and therefore want it to shine.......and they pay attention to it. Also app.'s generally take less time to cook off. Therefore the cook needs to pay close attention to it.........while he's also cooking off several entree's that don't need his constant attention..........he looses focus of those longer cooking entrees while he's making that app..

Also dinners are more willing to walk on the wild side with app.'s, salads and desserts...........for two reasons. Price and risk. They don't want to walk away still hungry if their app.'s and salads stink, so they order a safe entree. Restaurants want sales and often that means providing what the customer wants verses what the restaurant wants to make...henseforth the large chuck of protein dominating the plate.

I'm not sure about your last comment Fat Guy............"and it doesn't require much in the way of creativity to make them interesting; you just have to read some magazines." I'd say based on my observations that holds true for non-professional cooks far more then professionals. Line guys rarely read anything on cooking (they never walk in and make something from a published recipe). Chefs read more then their line cooks......but in comparision to avid home cooks......they read far less on cooking. Many home cooks own more cooking books then professional chefs.

App.'s often stem from items that need to be used up, to avoid waste. Typcially the line guy doesn't know what he's got to use until his shift begins. And they don't quick look to a book for ideas, they look around the kitchen to see what they can pull together.

[mikeycook]

I think both of you make excellent points and this is something I have debated with my wife for a long time. Fat Guy, I think you are spot on with your comments about the limits of the entree. I can't count how many times I have had a wonderful, interesting appetizer, only to be followed by a fairly standard entree (i.e. meat, starch, veg, and sauce). This is part of the reason I (as well as others) order tasting menus more often than I used to, although this can pose another problem.

While I agree that the small plate allows for more risk-taking, the tasting menu makes it easier to hide a bad dish or two. The same, I find, is true of tapas, for the same reason. With the appetizer/entree combination, though, it is very hard to pass off a dish that is not fully satisfying. I find I wind up having more respect for a restaurant that can thrill me with two dishes (or three with dessert) as opposed to 6-10 dishes (or more) because there is nowhere to hide.

I also think part of the reason that we find more exciting appetizers than entrees is partly psychological. I think the whole process of entering a restaurant, being seated, reviewing the menu, ordering, getting your first drink, bread, water, etc. is all leading up to the arrival of the appetizer. When it arrives, it usually gets everyone's full attention and it can be consumed by a mouth that is not yet adulterated with other food tastes (except maybe a little bread which will tend to taste more neutral). The entree, by contrast, will necessarily be compared to the appetizer and has to contend with a person who already has food tastes and memories from that meal. If the appetizer is great, it is easy to overshadow what comes after. It is like having two people give speeches immediately after each other. If the first speaker is dynamic, exciting, and interesting, the second speaker's message can be lost or diluted as the audience is still thinking about the first speaker.

[Chris Amirault]

Great thread topic and interesting responses so far. A question: for what cuisines does this principle apply? For example, it makes no sense if you're having dim sum, tapas, or sushi. As I read the comments, I also thought about the meal I had at Esca in NY, during which I enjoyed a series of dishes, none of which were properly mains save my daughter's fish course (wild salmon, purslane salad, and grilled figs) -- hardly meat and two veg.

[JohnL]

I think both of you make excellent points and this is something I have debated with my wife for a long time.  Fat Guy, I think you are spot on with your comments about the limits of the entree.  I can't count how many times I have had a wonderful, interesting appetizer, only to be followed by a fairly standard entree (i.e. meat, starch, veg, and sauce).  This is part of the reason I (as well as others) order tasting menus more often than I used to, although this can pose another problem.

While I agree that the small plate allows for more risk-taking, the tasting menu makes it easier to hide a bad dish or two.  The same, I find, is true of tapas, for the same reason.  With the appetizer/entree combination, though, it is very hard to pass off a dish that is not fully satisfying.  I find I wind up having more respect for a restaurant that can thrill me with two dishes (or three with dessert) as opposed to 6-10 dishes (or more) because there is nowhere to hide.

I also think part of the reason that we find more exciting appetizers than entrees is partly psychological.  I think the whole process of entering a restaurant, being seated, reviewing the menu, ordering, getting your first drink, bread, water, etc. is all leading up to the arrival of the appetizer.  When it arrives, it usually gets everyone's full attention and it can be consumed by a mouth that is not yet adulterated with other food tastes (except maybe a little bread which will tend to taste more neutral).  The entree, by contrast, will necessarily be compared to the appetizer and has to contend with a person who already has food tastes and memories from that meal.  If the appetizer is great, it is easy to overshadow what comes after.  It is like having two people give speeches immediately after each other.  If the first speaker is dynamic, exciting, and interesting, the second speaker's message can be lost or diluted as the audience is still thinking about the first speaker.

←

To me, appetizer is just that, something that should stand on its own as a prelude to the main course or courses.

I think that at one time traditional Haut cuisine French meal was comprised of appetizer, soup, fish course, palatre cleanser, main course, a salad, cheese course and desert with portion sizes adjusted appropriate to thier place in the whole meal. (Iam sure someone will coreect me here if need be).

This was reduced or simplified to three courses: appetizer, main course, desert. Then some restaurants began to offer more main dish courses--cutting down on size. (here in NYC I belive March was one of the first to do this). Some experimented with multiple smaller courses or really a selection of many appetizer with which one could construct a meal (I recall a place Trio which was somewhart short lived).

I also believe that the current trend toward tasting menus has an upside and a downside.

First-they demand a skillful and creative chef. I think there are many lesser talented chefs who are offering unimaginative tasting menues. I also believe that there probably are highly creative and talented chefs who do not excel at tasting menus.

From a diner's perspective, tasting menus can be fun but I think FG noted articulately, the trade offs here: intellectual vs hedonistic etc.

I can recall a number of situations with tastings wherein I can not remember much about any specific dish--the evening was a culinary blur, if you will. i remember i had a great time but I can't remember specifically, why. I can also remember many "traditional"

three or four course meals that had a very memorable dish or dishes wherein I savored every bite of a dish and that pleasure grew as the complexity of the dish revealed more with each taste.

For eg I had sea scallops in a celery broth with chanterelles at Domain Chandon in Napa as a main course for lunch that I can not forget--or a woodcock at one of Nico's iterations in London.

I really can not recall many singular dishes at any tasting--I tend to recall the overall experience.

so maybe this is the trade off--like a wine tasting where one "samples" many great wines and can be dazzeled by the experience as opposed to a few glasses of a great wine where one can experience the full complexity of the wine and be equally dazzled.

[Hest88]

In your basic uncreative restaurant, the problem is that most every entree will be structurally the same: a large piece of animal protein with a sauce, accompanied by some number of vegetable and starch garnishes.

This has always been my conclusion as to why appetizers are frequently more interesting than entrees. I am one of those people who have taken to ordering a few appetizers in lieu of a single entree at many restaurants. If I do order an entree it's often due to the sides as much as the main entree. There are only so many ways to do a slab of protein, given its size, so the supporting players can easily steal the show.

[JohnL]

In your basic uncreative restaurant, the problem is that most every entree will be structurally the same: a large piece of animal protein with a sauce, accompanied by some number of vegetable and starch garnishes.

This has always been my conclusion as to why appetizers are frequently more interesting than entrees. I am one of those people who have taken to ordering a few appetizers in lieu of a single entree at many restaurants. If I do order an entree it's often due to the sides as much as the main entree. There are only so many ways to do a slab of protein, given its size, so the supporting players can easily steal the show.

←

I think that the portions of main courses have been out of control in too many restaurants. The idea is to always leave them wanting more. Consumers are to blame demanding huge portions--I love lamb shanks for eg, but often find them served a a two pound hunk of meat and bone--overkill.

I think if we take the discussion at its highest level and assume the pinnacle of each side we would see pluses and minuses to each.

For eg Is it better to have fewer dishes excuted by a talented and creative chef wherein the portions were large enough to allow one to experience the complexity and savor the dish over a period of time.

or

Is it preferable to have a wide range of dishes in small portions executed by an equally talented and creative chef wherein the goal is to "dazzle" with creativity and complexity in one or two bites?

I would argue that both are preferable--it is a matter of what one is in the mood for. But there are definite trade offs involved in each.

[DTBarton]

Definitely many restaurants shine brighter on their apps than on the entrees and for many of the good reasons already mentioned.

I try to evaluate honestly and think about whether the apps were really better or am I not as hungry now. This happens a lot to me as I don't habitually have a fancy and/or rich (or large) appetizer before my meals except when eating out or entertaining.

Using that criteria, I've re-evaluated some of my entree opinions, and I order just apps at some places.

[BryanZ]

It's interesting to see how what was initially a discussion about a restaurant in North Carolina can inspire a thread that really gets into people's fundamental ideas about dining.

It seems that the important distinction that needs to be made is dependent on the type of cuisine being served. In haute and daring cuisine the 20-course tasting menu seems a little bit ridiculous. With that said, I personally enjoy this trend since I prefer trying as many different and new dishes as possible. Yes, I run the risk of getting lost in a "culinary whirlwind", but the prospect of experiencing something totally new is undoubtedly exciting. The more I eat out, the less likely I am to settle for just one appetizer, entree and dessert; I'm always ordering multiple items, sharting, and trying to get tastes of everything.

In returning to the appetizer vs. entree debate at hand, most restaurants will feature appetizers that are more unique than the mains. Sadly, large portions at medicore restaurants get boring, even if they are otherwise perfectly competent dishes. But then again, I think that the eating habits of eG posters are not necessarily representative of the general public. Large portions will continue to dominate at the majority of restaurants, much to my chagrin.

[Katie Nell]

I agree with all the points thus far, but what about the desserts? That's one area I find particularly lacking in the "creative" restaurants I've been to lately. And to me, it's a completely missed opportunity to be really outrageous and creative. This is the part of the meal that I look forward to most, but am most disappointed in usually. One of my favorite restaurants that always has interesting and unusual amuse bouche, appetizers, and entrees, has very boring desserts for the most part. Every once and awhile, they'll surprise me, but for the most part, it's an apple tartlet or a flourless chocolate cake... BOR-ing!

Here's my question: can you say something to the restaurant? Or is that the worst thing you could ever do in one of your favorite restaurants? To me, if I were a chef, I would want to know if things were starting to get tired.

[mikeycook]

I think most good chefs would want to hear your concerns. Although they may not like criticism and some may bristle at hearing it, the alternative is certainly worse (i.e. people stop eating at the restaurant because it is getting tired and because of a staff that worships them too much be too critical, they don't find out about it when either business falls off or they get a bad review citing the same. I would think hearing such a criticism directly from a customer when there is still time to change things would be preferable (they can always disagree, but then again you can always go somewhere else).

[britcook]

One of the major problems with a large dish in any course is that unless there are many levels of taste or texture, difficult with a large chunk of protein, then the taste buds lose their sensitivity. Eat enough of it and you will no longer taste it. It's the chewing gum thing, it doesn't lose it's flavour you do. With the conventional meat and sides entree the variety is provided by the differences between the elements and if you don't have enough contrast then boredom sets it. One of the great joys of dim sum, nasi goreng, mezze or tasting menus is that your palate is constantly refreshed and stimulated. It ain't fashion it's physiology.

[ojbowl]

Not only should people read this for entertainment. This imformation is very good hospitality research that all cooks should consider when creating a menu. this is just as good as consumer feedback.

[Tess]

One of the major problems with a large dish in any course is that unless there are many levels of taste or texture, difficult with a large chunk of protein, then the taste buds lose their sensitivity. Eat enough of it and you will no longer taste it.

←

And conversely, a lot of times an appetizer-sized plate is not something you would want to eat if it were larger for a number of taste and content reasons. Sometimes they are more intense, salt or fat intensive, whatever.

[Hest88]

It's the chewing gum thing, it doesn't lose it's flavour you do.

Really? I had no idea. Does that mean if I put half-chewed gum back in my mouth it will taste fine again?

[Wendy DeBord]

I agree with all the points thus far, but what about the desserts?  That's one area I find particularly lacking in the "creative" restaurants I've been to lately.  And to me, it's a completely missed opportunity to be really outrageous and creative.  This is the part of the meal that I look forward to most, but am most disappointed in usually.  One of my favorite restaurants that always has interesting and unusual amuse bouche, appetizers, and entrees, has very boring desserts for the most part.  Every once and awhile, they'll surprise me, but for the most part, it's an apple tartlet or a flourless chocolate cake... BOR-ing!

←

If you ever do talk to them, ask them if they have a pastry chef on staff.

[loiosh]

Another factor, I think, is that the 'serious' eaters are more likely to order an appetizer, so chefs can be more inventive with the flavors here. Everyone who comes to the restaurant is going to order a main, so more of the choices have to be 'safe'.

[britcook]

It's the chewing gum thing, it doesn't lose it's flavour you do.

Really? I had no idea. Does that mean if I put half-chewed gum back in my mouth it will taste fine again?

←

After refreshing the palate you will regain the base flavour, yes. Some reference to the effect by Heston Blumenthal in this article

[dragonflychef]

wow what wonderful thought out ideas about how and why we eat. so much of our dining public does not subscribe to living to eat , rather the focus is on value for money spent , or in other words how much do i get for this price, we must remember we here are in the minority of diners in the us and possibly the world

not every chef has the luxury of doing only tasting menus, you still must bay bills and if big honkin lamb shanks pay bills then sell em,we live in a society and era, that chains dominate the dining market, so dont criticize chefs for not being creative or for being uninteresting , there are many challenges that go into menu design and development , as well as educating your customer base, dont throw stones at the very people who are still trying to feed you , and trying to pleasure you with food

preston dishman -chef

[Shalmanese]

It's the chewing gum thing, it doesn't lose it's flavour you do.

Really? I had no idea. Does that mean if I put half-chewed gum back in my mouth it will taste fine again?

←

You've never done this? You should try it once.

The other unfortunate trend that some chefs go to is to try and cram as many flavours into an main as possible in order to keep it exciting. But instead you get a melange of contradictorary flavours with not rhyme or reason. I agree that multiple apps would probably be the best way to go, flavour wise. But you have to realise, cooking 2 lamb shanks is only infitesmally harder than cooking 1 lamb shank and only costs a tiny bit more in food costs. More and smaller dishes are always going to cost more for the same quantity of food. Perhaps the new model of dining will be 30 small plates and then going out for a hamburger afterwards.