Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats

[jhlurie]

Most  BBQ is junk.

Let's amend that to "Most commercial BBQ is Junk"

Okay Mark, point taken. Sorry.

I should have known that either you or Klink would get on that, but I was trying to use Steve's own words to most effectively open my argument.

[Orik]

It's perfectly okay if he limits his own interests.  But to put everything in two barrels--expensive and cheap eats, interesting and boring, worthy and unworthy, choucroute and hamburger, is to carry the argument too far.  The differences between these things are a matter of degree, not a sharp line.  

And that is just why I suggested a formula... you can draw various dishes on an axis and see what's really interesting from a preparation/composition perspective and whether that correlates to it belonging to "haute cuisine" vs "cheap eats"...dimensions may be added if you wish to make the analysis more complete (e.g. plot dishes in ingredients/prep time/complexity space).

Seriously though, I find that metadiscussions require a precise definition of the discussion under discussion, otherwise they are...well...very murky and not useful at all. Call in Wittgenstein.

[Fat Guy]

How did my original comment, which seemed to be applauded at the time become something that I had to defend? Hmmmm.

Ah, the betrayal!

[jhlurie]

Orik, I bow to a superior knowledge of both mathematics and philosophy!

Well, at least nod my head.

[Fat Guy]

One thing I'll throw in here -- and forgive me for not getting into the underlying definitions that Orik has legitimately requested -- is that I find most haute cuisine terribly boring. Are there even 50 haute cuisine restaurants in New York City that serve truly interesting food? There are some, to be sure, and I certainly think that at those few restaurants you get something that is categorically more interesting than any hamburger, hot dog, falafel, or pho. But what about when you drop into the second tier? I find little to be impressed with when it comes simply to executing the technical procedures taught at the Culinary Institute of America. Sure even that represents a higher level of training than what the average fry cook receives, but that doesn't make it interesting. And the sheer uniformity of it all makes it, to me, almost by definition uninteresting.

I was at White Manna in Hackensack today, and I was positively mesmerized by the grill-man. He takes balls of ground beef and places them (as balls) on the griddle. He lets them cook a bit and throws shredded onions on top. He then smushes the balls down flat so they merge with the onions. Buns and cheese are added and the whole package is left on the grill awhile longer before being served. As the burgers proceed through each phase, they are shifted to the left and new burgers are added to the right. I'm sure with a certain amount of practice I could do his job, but a person of reasonable competence can probably learn to cook anything -- at any level of cuisine -- with practice. I certainly felt it was worth a drive to Hackensack, and I found the whole experience far more interesting than eating at a middle-market fancy restaurant in Manhattan. Likewise, I'd rather read about White Manna at length than about any crummy neighborhood wannabe fine-dining establishment.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Everyone wants to turn my comment ABOUT COOKING TECHNIQUE into a point about populism. Take Jon's comment about an egg, a conversation about soft boiling an egg isn't very exhilerating. But conversations about shirred eggs, or coddled eggs are much more interesting because the level of technique one has to apply to preparing eggs in those styles is more demanding than soft boiling. Capsico? So my point about choucroute and a hot dog and kraut on a bun isn't about subjectively determining which one is better, it's ackowledging that objectively making a good choucroute is more demanding a task, and as a result, choucroute is more interesting to talk about (preparing) than a ballpark frank. And it's for that very reason why fancy restaurants serve choucroute, but don't serve hot dogs on buns.

Margaret - May I remind you that whilst it is something you and I do all the time, spending $20 on some fermier fromage and some cherries isn't exactly cheap. Families eat more than an entire meal on that amount of money. But I hear you and they must have been quite good. Who was the cheesemaker?

Orik - It isn't that foods that are simple to make merit less discussion, it just so happens that there is less to discuss about preparing them. To prove this point, all you have to do is to look at any thread someone starts here about a simple food. Look at B Edulis's corn thread. While people are waxing rhapsodic about the deliciousness of sweet corn, there is no discussion about how to prepare it. Last I looked, I was the only person who added a "recipe" to the thread.

Mark Stevens - According to Robert Peason of Pearson's fame, who I ran into at Kitchen Arts & Letters last week, making BBQ is all about getting the right equipment. Mr. Pearson also added that there is a place in Syracuse/Rochester called Dinosaur that he thought was making some superior BBQ these days.

Jon - No the difference between choucroute and a hamburger *is* a sharp a line. Think of it like music, like the difference between playing This Land is Your Land and Giant Steps. To play a saxophone solo at almost breakneck speed that is a cycle of thirds that changes every bar, is much more technically demanding than strumming a 1-5-4-5 chord pattern on an acoustic guitar. And that isn't a value judgement to say which is better, it's just an ackowledgment that you can learn how to do one in a week, and the other you could practice your entire life and still not get it right. Same with the burger/choucroute. If you knew nothing about cooking, it would take you far longer to master the technique of making a good choucroute than it would to make a good burger. Why? Because the choucroute is more nuanced. There are more variables. Just figuring out how to drain the sauerkraut of water without eliminating the acidity is the type of challenge that doesn't exist when making burgers.

Fat Guy - Of course my comments do not go to eating "cheap eats" or finding them. The glorys of places like White Manna will never fade. But, none of us are sitting on the edge of our seat trying to learn how the grillman at White Manna does it. That you told us how, or that I explained how White Castle does it is anecdotal at best. Now exactly how much green tea powder to put in your dessert, or what to do with your potatoes before placing them in the gratin, now that's not anecdotal.

Jaymes - Alas we are all out of the oil in question. A old and dear friend schleped back a two liter bottle for me many years ago. Although it is not supposed to last, we used it for years. A favorite use was a splash in a saute pan to finish off some scallops. But my wife in one of her cleaning fits didn't realize what it was and threw it away. Dommage as it was one of the single best food items I ever had.

[Fat Guy]

Everyone wants to turn my comment ABOUT COOKING TECHNIQUE into a point about populism.

That's because everyone is against you.

[Toby]

Everyone wants to turn my comment ABOUT COOKING TECHNIQUE into a point about populism. It isn't that foods that are simple to make merit less discussion, it just so happens that there is less to discuss about preparing them. To prove this point, all you have to do is to look at any thread someone starts here about a simple food. Look at B Edulis's corn thread. While people are waxing rhapsodic about the deliciousness of sweet corn, there is no discussion about how to prepare it. Last I looked, I was the only person who added a "recipe" to the thread.

While there weren't many recipes for cooking corn on the cob posted, that's not to say that the whole subject of corn isn't incredibly complex and open to endless analysis. Whole cultures and civilizations have been based on corn and even the Pilgrims -- remember Squanto? Seriously, just being able to cultivate corn was a major step for humanity in a large part of the world. And then the endless permutations of corn -- the varieties of corn -- heirlooms, hybrids (sweet and supersweet), field corn; popcorn; corn cut off the cob in fried corn and creamed corn and corn pudding and succotash; the fungus that grows on corn which is considered a great delicacy in Mexico; drying all the different varietiies of corn (I dry my own sweet corn in the oven and then make winter corn pudding with it for Thanksgiving) -- corn grits (grits pudding; all kinds of different grits preparations, some quite sophisticated in the new southern cooking); pozole, and then further refinement of masa for tamales and tortillas; polenta (preparation of which is open to endless analysis); cornmeal in the U.S.; cornbread (regional differences between north and south in U.S., and then differences within the southern states; corndogs!; spoon bread; Indian corn pudding; corn syrup which is found in more prepared foods than we might think. Libraries could be filled on corn-related subjects. And that doesn't even begin to talk about how to choose the freshest corn at the market, the pleasures of getting fresh-picked corn into the pot (which reminded me of MFK Fisher's piece on picking and cooking sweet peas), and all the different ways that people cook fresh corn on the cob. Any food is simple; but if you don't understand the food in its basic state, all the technique and frills you might add to it will probably be superfluous.

[Sandra Levine]

Last I looked, I was the only person who added a "recipe" to the thread.

The very first response to that thread has a recipe for corn. Yes, it is simple and submitted by someone who never posts reviews of 3-star restaurants, so I guess it didn't capture your attention.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"The very first response to that thread has a recipe for corn"

Sandra - Okay. If you want to call putting corn in a pot of boiling water a recipe. That's like saying "place the hamburger on a hot grill" is a recipe. I meant recipe as in *unusual and different way to prepare it.* Soba is the only other one who offers a recipe but it's for corn bread. And the whole thread currently has only 19 responses. How can that be when corn is such a great item?

[Sandra Levine]

Not really. I point out that you turn the heat off after putting the corn in the pot and that it can sit for 20 minutes or so without overcooking. When I learned this technique, I found it valuable and worth sharing with others. I don't disagree with you that complex food is more interesting to read and write about, but sometimes even simple things do have nuances that are worth exploring.

I don't know why corn has only 19 responses. Maybe because corn is so seasonal and it is not yet the season. Maybe because people on that thread are not arguing with themselves and each other.

[John Whiting]

Why does page 2 of this thread run off the screen, so that it can't be read without shifting the image back and forth?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Sandra - As a gross generalization, and this is my take on how the board reacts to things and not an in-depth study of the board, when someone posts on simple foods, the conversation usually runs to where you can get the best version and how good it tastes. For things like corn on the cob, people might post about a few different techniques, but as you can see, your method sufficed as THE recipe, although it's the weekend and people still might add to it.

But when you ratchet the level of the dish up to potato gratin, the amount of nuance that goes into making the dish usually gives us somewhat more to talk about. Aside from the part of the thread where people announce how much they like potato gratin, you then have people chiming in with what or where their favorite version is. Then people talk about the various nuances in how their favorite version is prepared. Like boiling the potatoes in milk first or rubbing the gratin dish with a clove of garlic. You then have the entire meta discussion stage, if certain of us are so moved, that discusses the history and social aspects of potato gratins.

I would think that as a general rule, what drives most threads is a funny combination of a dish having both complexity and popularity. Like someone else raised making chicken soup as something simple that is worth discussing. And I will add roast chicken to that list. But the fact of the matter is that making a good roast chicken and a good chicken soup *is not so simple.* Plain doesn't translate to simple. But since making a good one is within our grasp, discussion of the nuances in how to make good versions would be a popular thread. The fact of the matter is that the addition of a single herb to a chicken soup can change it's entire complexion. Squeeze a lime in the soup or throw some tarragon in at the right moment, or some chopped dill and it can transport us from Mexico to France to Russia. And I'm sure if someone started a Chicken soup thread, all the variations would kick in. But if you haven't noticed, nobody was reallly interested in discussing hamburgers from a worldwide chopped meat perspective. That can only be for two reasons, and I would love for somebody else to add other reasons if they have them. One, it's easy to make, and two, the end result can only be so good. The best hamburger, kofte, bowl of chile is great. But they don't have the soul that a great chicken soup has.

[Bux]

While there weren't many recipes for cooking corn on the cob posted, that's not to say that the whole subject of corn isn't incredibly complex and open to endless analysis.  Whole cultures and civilizations have been based on corn and even the Pilgrims -- remember Squanto?  Seriously, just being able to cultivate corn was a major step for humanity in a large part of the world.  And then the endless permutations of corn -- the varieties of corn -- heirlooms, hybrids (sweet and supersweet), field corn; popcorn; corn cut off the cob in fried corn and creamed corn and corn pudding and succotash; the fungus that grows on corn which is considered a great delicacy in Mexico; drying all the different varietiies of corn (I dry my own sweet corn in the oven and then make winter corn pudding with it for Thanksgiving) -- corn grits (grits pudding; all kinds of different grits preparations, some quite sophisticated in the new southern cooking); pozole, and then further refinement of masa for tamales and tortillas; polenta (preparation of which is open to endless analysis); cornmeal in the U.S.; cornbread (regional differences between north and south in U.S., and then differences within the southern states; corndogs!; spoon bread; Indian corn pudding; corn syrup which is found in more prepared foods than we might think.  Libraries could be filled on corn-related subjects.  And that doesn't even begin to talk about how to choose the freshest corn at the market, the pleasures of getting fresh-picked corn into the pot (which reminded me of MFK Fisher's piece on picking and cooking sweet peas), and all the different ways that people cook fresh corn on the cob.  Any food is simple; but if you don't understand the food in its basic state, all the technique and frills you might add to it will probably be superfluous.

I think you prove Plotnicki's point by noting that to make an analytic post on corn on the cob you want to bring in the "whole subject" and histories of cultures and civilizations. Steven doesn't claim the history of the French Revolution--which may be responsible for restaurants as we know them today in the western world--is necessary to analyze potato gratins. It's in the food and in the preparation of what's in the cooks hands.

[Bux]

Why does page 2 of this thread run off the screen, so that it can't be read without shifting the image back and forth?

I believe it's because of a post that contains a very long line without a space. My guess is that if the "formula" had placed a space before and after each "*" we'd not have that problem. It's not too late for the poster to edit his contribution and see if that fixes things.

[Sandra Levine]

Maybe it was the use of "cheap" rather than "simple." that set some teeth on edge. There was, in fact, a discussion on chicken soup, just as you described, many months ago, before you joined.

http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?s=...hl=chicken+soup

[Fat Guy]

John: The page will widen to accommodate the widest post, which in the case of that page is I believe Orik's mathematical dissertation.

Plotnicki: I'm not sure I get your corn point. Can you elaborate and explain what you're trying to use that corn thread to demonstrate?

I assume you're not saying that corn-as-an-ingredient is uninteresting, as there are countless things you can do with corn in cooking along the whole range from savory to sweet (although the French have not widely embraced the ingredient and therefore there are probably fewer interesting applications than there deserve to be).

I also assume you're not saying that corn is uninteresting as a subject; Fussell's book surely puts that notion to rest. It's probably one of the top dozen or so food items in the world in terms of interestingness as the subject matter for a book.

Are you saying that cooking corn on the cob isn't an interesting subject that lends itself to detailed culinary analysis? Were you saying that, I would disagree. There are quite a few methods for cooking corn, and I'd find a comparison interesting. Boiling is of course the most commonly utilized approach, but there are strong arguments for steaming, grilling, oven-roasting, deep-frying, and probably other methods I've never even seen used (smoking and pressure-cooking come to mind). And I have no doubt that, as with many foods, interesting results can be achieved through a combination of methods. And these methods all call for decisionmaking; for example, if you grill something, you're probably going to bring a sauce or rub or marinade or something into play at some point -- perhaps at several points. And that in and of itself is a big topic. Likewise, different types of corn probably lend themselves better to different handling. Would you not think that a side-by-side comparison of various types of corn cooked according to the various methods outlined above would make for interesting reading?

Or is your point that boiling corn on the cob -- or cooking corn in any one particular way -- is not an interesting subject? I don't know if I would agree with that either. I have a number of questions about boiling corn, the answers to which I'd find interesting: For example, does corn taste better cooked at a rolling boil, simmered, poached, or what? Has anybody tried starting the corn in cold water and bringing it to the boil, as some recommend for hard-boiled eggs? What about proper seasoning of the water, or the possibility of using stock or another liquid as a supplement to the water? Is there a best way to apply butter and salt to corn? Are there condiments aside from butter and salt that would cast corn in a different light and perhaps constitute an improvement? I don't see how the answers to these questions are any less inherently interesting than the answers to questions about any other recipe.

Or maybe you're just saying that corn on the cob, no matter how good it is, just isn't interesting enough to you to motivate you to read much about it or exert much energy in a quest for improvement. Or that you have in your mind defined an upper limit to how good corn could potentially be and you think you've come close enough to that limit such that it's not worth wasting your time on the subject. If so, that strikes me as a combination of cellar palate and culinary surrender. That's certainly how I've perceived your hamburger comments. I mean, here is a food you obviously have passion for. But it seems you've achieved a method of cooking them that is to you good enough -- good enough in the sense that you no longer have any interest in striving for a better burger. Yet I doubt your burger is the best in the world, and I wonder how you'd react if the person who does make the best burger came over and made you one. Surely you recognize an extremely broad range of quality among burgers; are you sure there's not a lot farther to go than you've gone?

In your example of green tea, what makes that more interesting than anything else? (Perhaps there is a larger question of what makes anything more interesting than anything else, but I think I intuitively understand what is interesting and what is not -- at least to me.) I'm kind of surprised by that example, actually. I mean, if somebody said to me that Pierre Gagnaire's food is more interesting than a hamburger, I'd have to agree. But green tea being more interesting than a hamburger? I'm not sure I see it.

I should also point out that many of our most energetic and successful cooking threads have been about subjects I consider very basic, like roasting a chicken. Yet the ultimate roasted chicken is a quest that has occupied many a gifted food writer.

Or are you making a distinction among cooking, writing about cooking, restaurants, and writing about restaurants? Are you saying that something that is not interesting in one of those contexts might be interesting in another? Or is your view of interestingness an across-the-board thing?

[Robert Schonfeld]

As usual, the FG asks so many of the right questions.

For the record, I am as interested in reading about boiling eggs or making burgers as I am reading about making puff pastry from scratch (any of you non-professionals ever try that?) Someone has already said that so much depends on who is doing the writing.

I am also more interested in experiencing great simple food than I am interested in experiencing great complex food *on a regular, ongoing basis*. Not that the latter isn't a real enjoyment for me; it is. One problem is that the opportunities for doing the latter are very limited, and going to ADNY, or any of the small handful of distinguished fine dining establishments in the city once a week just isn't my style. (It might be an interesting question on the side to wonder what kind of appreciation is accorded the experience at these places by people who are the once a week or more regulars in these places. The same, or different than that of writers here, and why?)

Btw, I've been to Dinosaur, a Syracuse legend, a bunch of times. Real smoked wood pit barbecue - and good blues.

[Sandra Levine]

Steve and Robert -- thank you. I would add that I enjoy eGullet discussions far more than argument for the sake of argument, which gets tedious, resolves nothing, threatens to become ad hominen, and takes up space that could be used for sharing genuine information.

[Bux]

For the record, I am as interested in reading about boiling eggs or making burgers as I am reading about making puff pastry from scratch (any of you non-professionals ever try that?) Someone has already said that so much depends on who is doing the writing.

Puff pastry would not be a good example in my case for several reasons, but that's not the point. I am as interested in reading about boiling eggs as anything else and would eagerly read good advice on the subject, but would I care to listen to a bunch of food professionals (articulate chefs in particular) disucss boiling eggs as much as I would like to hear them discuss the making of gratins. Sure you can analyze anything if you're bright and articulate, but why bother. What I think Steve P. is saying is that some things lend themselves to analysis better than others. I suspect there's some subjective element in all this, but on the whole it seems rather obvious. This is an odd thread in that Plotnicki is defending a view that makes so much sense to me as it's almost based on a textbook definition of the terms, and most everyone else is going to great lengths to find loopholes and stretch the terms to find an issue to take. Admittedly there's some poetic justice perhaps.

[Sandra Levine]

There is room on eGullet for discussing boiled eggs and potato gratin and, indeed, dishes far more complex than that. Can't it be done without tedious argument?

(I recognize that I am contributing to the tedious argument.)

[Robert Schonfeld]

Sure you can analyze anything if you're bright and articulate, but why bother.

Substituting the word "discuss" for "analyze", my answer would be: quality. It's all about quality, whether the eggs are boiled or golden.

[Fat Guy]

There's room for discussing boiled eggs, discussing potato gratins, and having tedious arguments. Can't we do all three?

Bux, for me one of the most interesting things to discuss with a serious professional chef is basic technique. I really like to learn how, for example, Jean-Georges scrambles eggs, or Ducasse cooks steak. Do you find this completely uninteresting, or categorically less interesting than a discussion of gratins?

[Jaymes]

I don't know. A sausage is a sausage is a sausage. It's just ground meat and spices. It has its limitations as great as it can be.

Well then, that explains why of course you wouldn't be really interested.

But I'm trying to think..... What else is just "meat and spices."

Can you think of anything, Steve?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay. I agree with Bux. All I'm saying is that there is less to say about boiling an egg than there is to say about making eggs benedict. But that doesn't mean that information about whether it should be a light boil or rolling, and what temperature the eggs should be when you throw them in the water, or how long to cook them and whether you douse them in cold water or not isn't relevent and interesting. But, and it's a very big but, I'm just pointing out that the conversations we have about things that are simple to prepare, get less responses than things that are more complicated to prepare, and which people around here are interested in preparing. The more interest we have in preparing something, and the more complex the preparation is both from a standpoint of quality of ingredients and hard to master technique, those seem to be the threads that get the most responses.

Remember, this conversation started with a question about why publications like the Times and Saveur do a poor job writing about simple foods. All I did was give a reason as to why. My comment has nothing to do with whether a conversation on making hamburgers CAN BE INTERESTING. Of course it can. But that's not to say that the conversation doesn't have its limitations because it is difficult to make a conversation about a simple thing like a hamburger interesting. And that's why the Times and Saveur do a poor job at it.

Fat Guy raises how haute cuisine chefs scramble eggs. One would think that would be a technique that everyone would be eager to learn. But in reality it isn't because unless you are having a fancy dinner party where you need to make those type of scrambled eggs, the type everyone already knows how to make is sufficient knowledge on the topic. So it doesn't really come up that often. And if it did, I would think it would be of limited interest. But how to get the skin of a roast chicken crispy, now that is something that people could probably write pages on.