Twitter
Facebook
RSS FeedReally tried not to let the pesky book flogging cut into the food blogging, but it’s tough when airport concourses don’t have free internet access. I was delighted to return home to see, via serious eats that The Onion had included Elements of Cooking in its highly specific holiday gift guide under the heading, “For Amateur Cooks Who Like to Feel Guilty.” But I don’t want to invoke guilt. And I must reiterate, I am not saying to people use homemade stock instead of canned broth, I’m saying use WATER instead of canned broth.
Great idea for a story from NYTimes reporter Kim Severson, about time: the death of the entree. When I go to an ambitious restaurant, I don’t want a three-plop meal. Big piece of meat, big pile o’ starch and the because-it’s-good-for-you veg. Unless I’m going to a steak house, I want to see as much of that restaurant’s food as possible. Which is why I almost always order exclusively appetizers. Frank Bruni, in his blog, defends the entrée, but I can only believe that he longs for a single entrée because it’s the one thing he can never have at a restaurant—his work forces him to try as much as possible. I also think that if more people ordered several small courses rather than one huge entrée, we’d eat less and chefs wouldn’t feel like they have to serve us in super-size quantities.
And last, I was quoted in this story in the Washington Post about Michel Richard and his new restaurants and had a brief email exchange with the reporter, Jane Black, about her claim that “Today, [Richard] is able to take advantage of diners’ growing acceptance that the master chef isn’t always in the kitchen…” Is this true, are diners becoming more accepting of the chef’s not being in their restaurants? I hope so, because it will indicate that more people understand the nature of the business and the work of the chef, but I don’t know.
On the canned stock vs water issue:
Sometimes, in a real pinch, I will use a boxed broth and cut it with water…usually 1:1 ratio. Then I add a sachet d’epices and bring it to just below a simmer. By cutting the boxed broth with water, it neutralizes the often salty, contrived flavor while holding on to the intended base flavors.
I agree with Michael, though…NOTHING is a substitute for homemade broth.
An addtional thought is the idea of a homemade broth being “touched” by the home cook and being made his or her own…to borrow from the beloved Emeril, it’s a ‘food of love thing.’
This idea also holds up in the case of using water instead of canned broth. One can make the flavored water their “own” by correctly seasoning it and adding some caramelized mirepoix, bouquet garni, or sachet d’epices. There are many options.
Just my thoughts…
There is a simple solution to the canned stock/broth question. A situation where it is fine to use canned.
Can it yourself. Otherwise use fresh, home frozen or water.
One very good reason (actually several) can be found by reading the indgrediant list on the side of the can/box.
We need to watch salt, this allows us to.
On the canned stock vs. water issue. I believe there should be an adjustment to the recipe to replace the canned stock if using only water. Respected cooking greats Madeleine Kamman uses bouillon in her stock and Julia Child in her book The Way to Cook said you can use package broth with a few adjustments.
When I was living in the Philippines we do not use a lot of canned stock but just water but we do add MSg…could this be the missing flavor that stock adds.
My hubby is totally against MSG but we all now know that it isn’t necessarily a bad thing if used judiciously.
Having done the tasting menu at restaurants like wd-50, where the chef is not only there every time I’ve been, but also really focused on creating a menu that is complex, thoughful and very creative in a forward thinking manner (vs. a more strict reinterpretation of classics – although this happens to some degree as well) – I definitely have an appreciation for that kind of cooking.
That said, to realistically eat like that all the time I think would not only be really implausible but also really ridiculous. I value those experiences for the more involved, imaginative flavor combinations. However, you see time and again the most respected chefs talk about the love of simple food. Flavor combinations that have existed for decades now, and continue to be revered if done well, I doubt can ever be fully replaced.
The exciting thing about food, like in many things, is often what’s new. And as people stretch and experiment more and more – I think the entree rather than being dead is perhaps on the verge on not being done justice. In new food, what’s happening most of the time when it’s really succesful and interesting is an achievement of modest complexity. Artfully working toward new flavor profiles with several ingredients together at once in a way that they aren’t competing with each other is a great achievement and deserves celebration – but it’s also not simple anymore.
Talk of big portions and the death of an entree all you will, but how can you kill the entree when most people don’t even fully appreciate the beauty of a properly raised piece of pork, lighty smoked and served medium rare. Bring it on with potatoes and an veg anyday. If done right I guarantee it wins the day over 85% of restaurants here in New York.
I celebrate all the chefs that are bringing new things (or old things) again to the forefront, but to herald the death of anything, history should have taught us this by now, is really only to breath life into it again. Someone, somewhere is working on an entree that will not only fill you up but blow your mind Ruhlman…..
I say : Bring it on !
Appetizer items, if good, make for much better dining while taking in a few drinks, the big lumberjack style plates need to be eliminated. If you look back at food items pictured in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, they are much smaller. The Professor.
Back to small plates v. entrees. I travel quite a bit myself, ordering at the bar with a book by my side. Dining off of the appetizer menu is my way to go.
Here is my take; Spain is the new Italy in restaurant kitchens. I think all of Spain is a bit halucinatory! Start with Cervantes and run through Dali, Bunuel, Picasso, Gaudi, Almodovar, and Ferran Adria. A small plate at one place, a small plate at another, sit for dinner and then sing outside somebody else’s window at 3:00 in the morning.
Personally I don’t want to go to a restaurant and see a rib eye steak or a swordfish steak that drapes itself over the outer edges of my dinner plate. And then a giant baked potato and Rachael Ray size portion of creamed spinach close by.
Bottom line: I think the tapa thing is good. It’s a respite we need after being punished by the old 50’s food ethic. Nevertheless, there are still trencherman portions out there.
Nic, you pretty much sliced through the Gordian Knot with that assessment.
When margins are razor-thin, it’s unlikely chefs are going to risk alienating their best customers with a dicey entree. And staying the course risks striking an iceberg of boredom.
My wife and I have often discussed the Appetizer/Main issue. In general, a chef is much more willing to stretch and take risks with a small appetizer than a main dish. The cost of ingredients in an main dish is usually much higher, and the risk of shocking a customer with new tastes is too high, so the mains are often classic – perhaps boring – dishes, and the starters are memorable. We often order 3 appetizers, and then dessert. As for Jane Black – she is doing a great job reinvigorating the Post food section. I say that as a DC metro area resident foodie, and not just because she did a nice piece on Woodlands Pork last month. She interviewed Brian Polcyn for that one. She is very knowledgeable and engaged, and I think will be a strong voice as a food writer going forward.
Wow, I think this a pleasant return of the exchange of ideas that a lot of people come to this blog(nominations?) to enjoy. I am respectful of the time and effort it must take for a book tour and from all indications it was successful.Welcome back home Ruhlman.
jim,
go and enjoy your boxed broth with RR and sandra. let the rest of us cooks enjoy real food discussions.
Well, all I know is that I made the best risotto of my entire life after making it with homemade stock and it will SO be difficult to revert to canned broth ever again. I admit it. I was just being lazy, but I have reformed.
As for the garlic press thing, it might be chef snobbery but on the other hand I sort of understand that.
I spent my formative years learning to write music notation, figured bass lines, transposing for various musical instruments based in different keys and clefs, and learning to write scores and arrangements, while learning to play an instrument.
Nothing vexes me SO much as some ignorant ox’ scybalum screaming into a microphone, pressing a switch for an automated rhythm track, or horn riff and calling themselves musicians except people paying good money for such hokum!
So what’s wrong with insisting that people who wish to cook should also learn to use a knife, especially for relatively easy tasks like pressing garlic?
Red Beans and Ricely Yours,
Wilmita
Thanks, Jim Swanson.
You seem to have an awful lot invested in making sure people consider Swanson broth in a good light. Me, I’ve read the ingredients list and I’ll pass.
ruhlman wrote,
“jim, it’s not snobbery. I just hate the fact that people use canned or boxed stock thoughtlessly. I’ll bet the good folks at Cook’s Illustrated, whom I admire, don’t consider it themselves.”
Cooks Illustrated has actually done numerous taste tests of boxed and canned beef and chicken broths and the taste tests are illuminating. Short answer: some are disgusting while others are acceptable. Note that I didn’t write “stellar”. I wrote “acceptable”. Of course homemade chicken/beef stock is hands down the best, and Cooks Illustrated readily admits that.
Log in and read what their tasters wrote (presuming you have an account, of course). The taste tests are listed under “canned goods” (even though many of them are not actually canned).
http://tastetests.cooksillustrated.com/tastinghome.asp
ruhlman, I did saute the mushrooms (mixture of button, crimini, shitaake) in butter and I did try to give myself a chance by adding extra fresh herbs, onions, and garlic to simmering water before I dumped in my mushrooms, simmered more, then blended. I’ll certainly try your suggestion though next time. Thanks.
Why all the arguing over “Michael said use water vs canned stock?”
Which tastes best? Whatever tastes best to YOU!
ruhlman wrote,
“we do have to use some common sense. Water is only water after all–the reason it’s so good to use is that it allows all the other flavors to come through cleanly.”
I. cannot. believe. what. I’m. reading.
Water DILUTES flavor. That’s why we make reductions. That’s why we dry-age beef. When you remove the water, you intensify the flavor.
But I’m just a stupid home cook. I should add more water to everything to “let the flavors come through more cleanly”!
@Mathias:
I love this insight of yours, Mathias–”We’re constantly bombarded by invisble, anonymous service in every day of our life and we don’t connect with people anymore…So we compensate by ‘getting to know’ a celebrity Chef or writer by watching their shows and reading their books or blogs and hope we can make this human connection.”
Perhaps this explains the passionate–even irrational–eruptions over The Next Iron Chef we saw here on this blog. We became emotionally invested in chefs we came to “know,” even feeling we could supplant our TASTING decisions for those of the judges–from the comfort of our living room armchairs! How many of us stole time from our workdays (guilty as charged) to blog on behalf of our favorites, parsing the shows with posters we’ve never met rather than say, checking up on that neighbor Mathias knows I’ve never had a full conversation with.
As much as I would hope to meet the star chef if I happened to be dining in his establishment, I’m honest enough to admit I’m NOT going to be able to discern between a dish prepared by John Besh himself and one cooked by another talented Restaurant August chef. How many of us really have palates so refined? [Watermelon consomme connoisseurs excepted!]
“Celebrity” chefs HAVE to be business people, too, these days, and as long as they keep a tight rein, hire great people, continue to maintain exceptional culinary standards, and try not to spread themselves too thin, then I think we customers can be happy. And well fed.
Still, I do hope to get to New Orleans one of these days…
Claudia wrote,
“No, Jim, there is a real reason Bourdain disdains the garlic press: (1) it’s unnecessary”
A garlic press can do what a chef’s knife can do in one-tenth the time. Perhaps it isn’t necessary to save time, though.
“and (2) some of them pulp the crap out of your garlic.”
That’s a really crude way to write “a garlic press crushes and pulverizes garlic”. Yes, that’s true. Whether or not that is “bad” will depend solely on the application.
The real reason Bourdain despises the garlic press, as I wrote in my other post, is because it chafes him to see a clumsy home cook spit out crushed garlic from the end of a garlic press and say, “It tastes fine”. Doesn’t that make all of Bourdain’s hard-earned knife skills look much less important? That must annoy said chef greatly to have some clueless rube render some of his fancy chef skills unnecessary.
Claudia further writes,
“I think Ruhlman loathes canned or boxed broth about as much as Bourdain loathes Rachael Ray, and for pretty much the same reasons – eeeeee-VIL! Eeeeee-vil! No chef snobbery there. Some things are just SO wrong.”
You’ve not only described snobbery, but you’ve described it in a manner highly reminiscent of a snobby and petulant high-school bitch. When you say some things are “just SO wrong”, what you really mean is that they’re beneath someone of your level of refinement and sophistication, correct?
If I may repeat myself:
The only way that using boxed chicken broth could “hurt” the food is if you were comparing the final product made with boxed chicken broth with a final product made with real chicken stock. There is clearly no comparison between boxed chicken broth and homemade chicken stock, particularly since the latter has all that wonderful, unctuous gelatin. But it certainly must chafe a seasoned and experienced chef to see a clumsy home cook pop open a box of Swanson’s and say, “This tastes fine”, particularly after said chef has spend hundreds if not thousands of hours making untold gallons of real chicken stock. It just diminishes the quality and importance of all that hard labor, doesn’t it? I’m sure said chef would much rather sentence a home cook to flavorless water than watch them actually enjoy something so common and so cheap.
Jeff, we do have to use some common sense. Water is only water after all–the reason it’s so good to use is that it allows all the other flavors to come through cleanly. If there ARE no other flavors, then it’s going to taste, well, watery. Did you use white button mushrooms? Did you use them raw–or did you saute them to develop some flavor first?
Again, water doesn’t have any taste–if water is the main ingredient then that’s what it’s going to taste like.
How about using some cream as your liquid rather than canned stock? You want to make an awesome cream of mushroom soup? Saute mushrooms in a really hot pan, add cream to cover, and simmer till they’re cooked, abour five minutes. Then thoroughly puree in a blender, season with salt pepper and lemon juice. So good. Pass it through a chinois and you will be amazed at the luxuriousness of it.
One thing that really muddies the waters in the whole stock / broth / water issue is that there’s a tremendous ongoing confusion between BROTH and STOCK. Boxed chicken stock and canned chicken broth are NOT interchangeable.
Read the labels and do a taste test! The commercial stocks generally have a lot less salt, for one thing, and there are other differences in the ingredients as well.
jim, it’s not snobbery. I just hate the fact that people use canned or boxed stock thoughtlessly. I’ll bet the good folks at Cook’s Illustrated, whom I admire, don’t consider it themselves. I’d love for them to do a side by side test with swansons, a high quality boxed, and water in basic preparations. I’m grateful to the people here who have tried it themselves and found it illumnating. Ultimately that’s the point: to cook thoughtfully. I hope there’s nothing snobbish about that.
and veron, I’m sorry, but did you ask the chef when was the last time he used canned or boxed broth? Keller said the same thing to me when I asked him. Then I said, “When was the last time you used it or tasted it?” He said he hadn’t. so even the most vaunted chefs will tell you to use it without thinking.
re the garlic press. I have one and often use it, but when I do, i take the germ out first. leaving the germ in is what makes garlic squeezed through a press taste off.
I agree with Jim. Store bought Chicken Broth is perfectly acceptable, and much better than plain water. No contest.
Veron, I look forward to your results. I must warn you though that I made a mushroom soup this past week substituting water instead of the organic chicken broth that I normally use. It was awful. My wife asked why it was so bad, I said that I used water instead of broth just like my new book said to do. She said, “well that was stupid, you should no better than that.” It was awful. No one liked it.
I remade the soup this week and it was much better. Would it be better with stock? Absolutely. But plain water instead of broth? No way.
today I made the Borscht from Simply Recipes and your words echoed in my head…USE WATER NOT ANYTHING CANNED OR BOXED….so i did not use canned broth as suggested and used water instead…this is one rule I will remember forever, so thx mike..
Funny, I went to a Michel Richard event (panel on food and wine/booksigning) last night too. In his comments he talked about the issue. One of the things he said is that he is a teacher. I think when a chef has a bunch of places it means it dilutes his ability to be teaching directly the people making the food. We can’t expect that the chefs personal standards are being upheld unless he comes around to check up and instruct. French Laundry didn’t lose its cache because Per Se opened because we think Keller has a handle on it. Lupa bears the imprint of Batali, though we don’t expect him to be there. But when I lived in NY, I saw the opening of the Laurent Tourondel empire: BLT Steak, BLT Fish, BLT Kelbasa, etc. I couldn’t believe — no matter how talented the chef was — that he was able to sustain a high level of attention to all them. It becomes like the Kevin Bacon game: how many degrees of separation from my plate to the chef’s hand. Two or three seems about right, but if a chef can only come by every few months to see how it is going, then I tend to think it will lose its connection to him or her and it will be less attractive. I’m glad Richard is able to cash in, but be wary of the case of Wolfgang Puck.
At some level, Michael’s job is to be a snob. If he said “you can go ahead and use canned chicen broth” or let Chef Besh get away with calling his soup “consommé”, he’d just be Rachel Ray or Sandre Lee without the perkiness.
Regardless whether you agree about the canned chicken stock, Michael uses water himself, as he’s stated on his blog before. There’s authenticity in his recommendation.
No, Jim, there is a real reason Bourdain disdains the garlic press: (1) it’s unnecessary, and (2) some of them pulp the crap out of your garlic. Any Italian can tell you you just need to use the flat of the blade of your cook’s knife to smash it, with one whack – instantly peeled. Ditto the infamous salad shooter – you can’t toss your own field greens, or what?
I think Ruhlman loathes canned or boxed broth about as much as Bourdain loathes Rachael Ray, and for pretty much the same reasons – eeeeee-VIL! Eeeeee-vil! No chef snobbery there. Some things are just SO wrong.
Funny, I was just at Citronelle yesterday. Michel Richard was hosting Alice Medrich for a dessert demo with dessert and wine pairing afterwards. Michel reminds me of Santa…he is so jolly. I was able to have him sign my copy of Happy in the kitchen too! I just posted about the event on my blog.
On a different note I asked one of the lead chef instructors at my Culinary Arts class (University of richmond) about water vs. canned broth. Sorry Michael, but he said canned broth like Kitchen basics and swanson low sodium is better than using water.
I’m on the fence on this one. I will try a simple saffron chicken stew using both swanson and good ole water and see which tastes better.
Darci – A stop at Lola or Lolita’s is worth it even if Chef Symon isn’t in.
As to the broth issue. I’m a good home cook who always kept canned/boxed broth in my pantry until I learned, via Michael, how to make my own. Now there is not a week that goes by that we don’t have roast chicken just so I can make the stock for the upcoming week. Last Saturday I made the veal stock that Michael describes in Elements and it has elevated my cooking to another level all together. It’s been a true enlightenment for me and it’s worth my time and effort (which really isn’t much) to prep it and freeze it. Before I knew what I was doing the boxed broth was fine, now that I know the difference, it’s just not working for me anymore.
Ruhlman writes,
“And I must reiterate, I am not saying to people use homemade stock instead of canned broth, I’m saying use WATER instead of canned broth.”
It’s plain old chef snobbery to advocate using water instead of boxed chicken broth. (I think Ruhlman specifically chooses the word “canned” in an attempt to impart a nasty, tinny flavor.)
Now Michael is talking about boxed BEEF broth, then I would agree with him: use water instead. That stuff is nasty. And don’t just take my word for it. Cooks Illustrated has run many, many different supermarket broths through their tasting panels and you can get all the reports from those tastings if you’re interested. Of course one could say that the Cooks Illustrated tasting panel is comprised solely of ignorant, unsophisticated dipsh*ts who know nothing about cooking, food, or English, so maybe you can refer to the other commenters in the previous thread who, like me, use boxed chicken broth and think it tastes just fine.
Read that again: just fine. Not stellar, and yet not bad either.
Ruhlman advises against using boxed chicken broth for the same reason that Bourdain advises against the garlic press: chef snobbery. It is retarded. Ditch that bullsh*t!
I will only eat at KFC if Tony is there wearing sunglasses and a baseball hat pulled down low to hide his face, and he’s ordering a big old pile of nuclear orange mac’n'cheez.
About the chef in the kitchen issue — not that that is news to Ruhlman or to the rest of us here, but this is the essential dynamic tension of celebrity chefdom. The fact is that the more famous a chef becomes, the more people want to eat that chef’s food — and yet, a big part of getting that higher profile in the first place entails being out of that kitchen. People who pay attention to the game know the truth, but not everyone pays as much attention to this world as we do.
In a way, I think it’s like those movies that are ‘based on true events’. You know that what you’re seeing is not the real story, but if the story you see is well-told and you enjoy the show, does it really matter?
To a degree, I think it does. My desire to eat at The French Laundry has dropped significantly since Keller stopped spending all his time there. That doesn’t mean I’d turn down an invitation to go there, but my expectations are different now. So too Babbo or some off the other really famous celebrity chef outposts. The food there is still good — but the edge of specialness is a little less.
Well,
there’s another thought on why we want the Chef to be in the kitchen:
We crave the human connection.
We’re constantly bombarded by invisble, anonymous service in every day of our life and we don’t connect with people anymore – what’s the point, the Barista at Starbucks won’t be there next week anyway, or the people living in the house next door move before we can say Hi.
So we compensate by “getting to know” a celebrity Chef or writer by watching their shows and reading their books or blogs and hope we can make this human connection. The disappointment, if we find out the Chef isn’t in the kitchen is deeper than not getting the magical touch or smile at the end of the meal.
I think of the scene in Ratatouille, when the critic takes a bite of the ratatouille and “remembers” his childhood food.
When was the last time, we cooked for someone and truly did something magical – and I’m not talking about ordering the extra big can of caviar. Or when was the last time connected with a person at work, on the street and where able to connect?!??
So, my 2cents for the Holidays!
cheers,
mathias
Sorry for the anonymous post above. I don’t know why it did that.
Regarding expecting the chef to be in the kitchen: I hope to be able to eat at Lola or Lolita next week (IF I can get a reservation – I can’t plan ahead since we have to wait for Customs to tell us which day to be there, and they rarely give us more than one day’s notice). I will hope that Chef Symon is there and that he comes out of the kitchen to mingle with the patrons, but I certainly won’t expect it. But I think a lot of people don’t really understand how a kitchen works. I dunno, maybe they expected to see Dave Thomas when they went to Wendy’s…or the creepy King to be at Burger King…
Regarding expecting the chef to be in the kitchen: I hope to be able to eat at Lola or Lolita next week (IF I can get a reservation – I can’t plan ahead since we have to wait for Customs to tell us which day to be there, and they rarely give us more than one day’s notice). I will hope that Chef Symon is there and that he comes out of the kitchen to mingle with the patrons, but I certainly won’t expect it. But I think a lot of people don’t really understand how a kitchen works. I dunno, maybe they expected to see Dave Thomas when they went to Wendy’s…or the creepy King to be at Burger King…
After looking at the holiday guide, I’m really torn between buying another copy of your book and the Tater Mitts.
And as far as whether or not we really care about the chefs being in the kitchen — we do, but we’ll excuse it if the food is fine. If the food is even slightly off par, then we’ll blame it on the inattentiveness and/or absence of the chef. We are a fickle lot.
I like the idea of several smaller plates, but the execution (the preponderance of tables too small for several plates, ineffecient serving order) and, often, the cost (an appetizer at entree prices?) is what turns me off.
I want my baby bites ribs.
I like the idea of smaller portions and the opporunity to try more items. But when I’m hungry-I’m hungry. Give me my food, come back once or twice and ask me how I am or if I need anything else. Then leave me alone.
I also read that article and came away thinking that the untold part of the story is, which is more profitable for the restaurant? Do they do better selling three apps or one app and one entree (for example)? And might that not slant some of the opinions being expressed?
As for me, I enjoy grazing, and a good tasting menu can be a fantastic experience, but there’s also something to be said for tucking into a big bowl of really good pasta.