Where's the beef?

[jackal10]

In the middle of a fine multi-course tasting menu at a reputable establishment, around the tenth or eleventh course, as we were served yet another micro-portion, my charming companion said (I paraphrase)

"Where's the beef? I'm fed up with canapes. I want something I can get my knife and fork into, with proper vegetables"

She hit the nail on the head. What we were being charmingly served was effectively a series of large canapes.

I know serving full size portions would be too much food, but must say I tend to agree. While a tasting menu shows the range and skills of the chef, its not proper food. It like eating one lollipop after another, in some cases literally. It leaves you full but not satisfied. There is something primitively satisfying about a hunk of protein that is missing.

I wonder if there is a case here for a change in style. Maybe we should have said "Serve us two or three full size plates from the a la carte, with a few amuse and inter-course garnishes". Maybe tasting menus should be built around a few stellar full size dishes.

In the old days a feast (defined as at least nine courses such as amuse/oysters/soup/salad/fish/sorbet/meat/cheese/sweet/desert/coffee. Savoury if you like) was built around a formula of a few large courses (fish, meat) interspersed with one or two small courses. The vegetables were served as an integrated part of the course, not as separate courses.

Please can we go back to that?

I'm sure eG'ers have views...

Edited January 11, 2006 by jackal10 (log)

[BryanZ]

I completley disagree. I find that as my tastes evolve I never crave more than a few bites of a given dish. The sight of a large piece of protein, sauced, and accompanied with the typical garnishes doesn't excite me except in the rarest of circumstances. I love the trend toward what Jackal10 refers to as a "series of canapes" as long as each dish builds off the last.

[johnder]

I agree with you BryanZ. As I get older I much rather prefer a selection of smaller tastes as opposed to one or two large portions.

Keller phrases is appropriately in his service manual...

All menus at the French Laundry revolve around the law of diminishing returns, such as the more you have of something the less you enjoy it. Most chefs try to satisfy a customer’s hunger in a shorter time with one or two main dishes. The initial bite is great. The second bite is fabulous. But on the third bite, the flavors lessen and begin to die.

[EllenC]

I have to side with Jackal on this one. I think it is very unsatisfying to have only one bite of this and two bites of that and no true focal point. I like a main course that has wonderful tastes to complement it - before, during and after.

I finally thought of a corollary, but modesty and a certain gentleman's tender feelings prevent me from going into detail...

Edited January 11, 2006 by EllenC (log)

[jsolomon]

I'll also join Jack's side. Granted, when I order a tasting menu, I expect that sort of thing, but there should be something in the middle.

The thing that disturbs me about tasting menus is (to riff off of another thread that I've put my worthless $.02 in) there is nothing wholesome in them. It's all a tease. Flirting tastes and suggestive platings that are about as satisfying as the microsecond romances in the checkout line in Wal-mart at Christmas.

Don't get me wrong, both have their places. But there should be a stolid element to anything in a meal I eat. Perhaps that's because I'm from sturdy farm stock.

To me, tasting menus satisfy the academic, curious side of me. Big, gigantic cuts of (insert formerly alive plant or animal flesh here) satisfy the deeper portions.

I could definitely have a one-night stand off of a tasting menu dinner, but not lasagne or pot-roast. They serve completely different areas of the diner and society.

But, when it all comes down to the deepest sentiments of what satisfies my food cravings, "Ug make fire for big meat".

[jackal10]

Good word that, wholesome, rther than tit-bits for sated, jaded palates.

[deltadoc]

Just curious, but I wonder if age plays a part in the preferences stated above. I personally have found that I have migrated from large chunks of grilled meat, salad, veggies, carbohydrate, bread and butter when I was young to much less meat/protein now, and a relishing for variety in small sizes, like a mini-buffet as I've grown into my 50's.

doc

[newguy]

I find that I go to certain restaurants BECAUSE i want 8, 2 bite plates, and I go to other places because I just want to have a great piece of meat or fish etc... Certain places are just made for tasting menus and others are made for a la carte.

Anyone agree?

[Taboni]

Not a big fan of the parade of canapes myself since invariably there are one or 2 courses that leave me thinking "I would like another portion of that!" but its as if having more than just a taste would upset the delicate balance of nature, or even worse the chef's "vision"

[jmsaul]

I find that I go to certain restaurants BECAUSE i want 8, 2 bite plates, and I go to other places because I just want to have a great piece of meat or fish etc...  Certain places are just made for tasting menus and others are made for a la carte.

Anyone agree?

←

Yes! It's nice to have variety.

[Mottmott]

I almost always agree with Jack, but alas, not this time. If I ate out more regularly than I do, perhaps I might. But most of my meals are home cooked and consist of larger portions of a few foods and less complexly developed dishes. So when I have the chance to have a many colored coat of taste, I'm there for it. It's a wonderful luxury to have a thoughtful progression of tastes and textures, ingredients and techniques.

I do find, as someone already suggested, that with age, smaller amounts of a particular food satisfy my desire and I have more need of variety on the plate. For example, when younger, I could eat a whole steak, a baked potato, and a salad, but now I find myself cutting a NY strip into 2-3 portions, depending on its thickness. I find with a larger portion, that the meat becomes less delicious with each bite.

When at a really good restaurant, I opt for a tasting menu. Three courses at most restaurants is simply too much food for me to eat, but I want the flow of tastes that at least 3 or 4 courses will bring.