rumination 1: something raw, something foie, something meat, something blah…

First Course: Cauliflower "Panna Cotta"
1st Course: Cauliflower Panna Cotta
per se, New York

Though it generally works out that ordering the tasting menu is a more “adventurous” course of action than ordering a la carte, I think this is much more often a function of the lack of an ability to choose your adventure rather than the offerings at hand.

I also think this is much more true in the U.S., where diners are less adventurous and the tasting menus more everyman than in Europe (I would include the rest of the world, but the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily eat the way people in the northern half of the Western hemisphere do).

The tasting menu has become a predictable, formulaic story.  It’s not just a matter of beginning, middle, and end any more.  It’s become a comfort zone for fine diners and, I suspect, chefs.

Admittedly, I’m one of them.

But it’s almost gotten to the point where I could approach Parker Bros. about making a board game out this, or cash in at Bravo, suggesting they make a tasting menu game show: “Guess That Tasting Menu.”

Let’s give it a whirl.  You get three clues.  We’ll start out easy:

Challenge #1: Name the protein.

Clue #1: 2nd Course on a 3-Course Tasting.
Clue #2: Average fine-dining restaurant.
Clue # 3: It’s not chicken and it’s not beef.

Answer: Salmon.

Here’s a harder one:

Challenge # 2: Name that course.

Clue #1: It comes before the pre-dessert.
Clue #2: It’s not meat.
Clue # 3: It will most likely show up on wheels.

Answer: Cheese course.

And, an even harder one:

Challenge #3: Name that pre-dessert.

Clue # 1: You eat it with a spoon.
Clue #2: It’s creation did not rely on an ice cream maker.
Clue # 3: It does not contain dairy.

Answer: Coconut tapioca.

* * * *

Can YOU crack the code?  I’ve given it a shot and come up with a rough snapshot of tasting menus circa first decade of the 2000s.

For a basic fine dining tasting formula, you’ll most likely see:

Amuse Bouche
Forgettable Bread
Something Raw
Something Foie
Something Fish (salmon or scallop)
Something Meat (beef or lamb)
Something Chocolate

For an above-average fine dining tasting menu, you’ll most likely see:

Amuse Bouche
Good Bread/Decent Butter
Something Raw
Something Foie
Something Fish (upgraded to a white fish: cod, or bass, or turbot)
Something Meat (if the beef hasn’t been upgraded to Kobe or some stock with provenance, then lamb)
Something Sorbet (fruit-based)
Something Cheese or Fruit
Something Chocolate
Good Coffee
Petits Fours

It gets less predictable at the elite fine dining level. All the same, you’ll most likely see:

Multiple Amuses Bouche
Excellent Bread/Excellent Butter (multiple choices)
Something White, Pureed and Topped with Caviar (cauliflower, parsnip, and celeriac are all candidates)
Something Raw
Something Foie (generous tranche of brioche is a must)
Something Pasta (bonus point if the pasta is filled)
Something Sea (upgraded to lobster, or some white fish done in an unfamiliar fashion)
Something Meat or Fowl (the rarer the breed the better, supplemental price if it’s game with shot)
Something Cheese (on a cart)
Something Pre-Sweet (most likely better than what is to follow)
Something Sweet 1
Something Sweet 2
Excellent Coffee
Petits Fours (multiple flights)
Cute Take-Home Pastry

* * * *

Many chefs also seem to be under the belief that the seriousness of their tasting menu is buoyed by:

1. The appearance of at least one dish made freakishly Asian with miso this or yuba that;
2. The addition of black truffles, regardless of the quality or season; and/or
3. Table-side entertainment – be it bird autopsy, dissection of a side of beast, or dramatic feats with a sauce boat and a spoon.

And my favorite crutch: the legitimacy of a chocolate dessert has come to hinge on the ability to name the chocolate’s far-flung origin.  If only I could get away with serving “Hershey, Pennsylvania Chocolate Cake” in my home.

This, of course, is a cynical, rough, and tongue-in-cheek caricature of an otherwise respectable form of a chef’s creative outlet (at least, that’s what I thought tasting menus were supposed to be).

I’m not saying that this sort of formulaic institutionalization is necessarily a bad thing.

Of course, a lot of it depends on what is being done with what products.

Of course, this is just how our society thinks of food in a linear progression.

Of course, I find comfort in familiarity and secured expectations – I happily accept the general small-to-large, fish-before-meat, end-with-dessert progression.

And of course, I willingly and often surrender to the above-mentioned equations.

The most compelling cases are those where the tasting menu represents the chef’s most treasured and classic dishes.  This is especially true when I’m visiting a restaurant that I’ll most likely not be able to revisit in any predictable amount of time. [See Paul Bocuse, The Fat Duck, and Restaurant Gordon Ramsay at Royal Hospital Road (note the title of that blog post).]

But I truly relish those rare occasions when chefs surprise me with something novel, something that steers a wide berth around cliches, and – most importantly – something wholly theirs.

~ by ulterior epicure on August 2, 2009.

8 Responses to “rumination 1: something raw, something foie, something meat, something blah…”

  1. Really couldn’t have said it better myself. Especially true “when I’m visiting a restaurant that I’ll most likely not be able to revisit in any predictable amount of time”.

  2. Y’know, no one complains about this when they come here to Japan and eat kaiseki. That’s even more formalized, but I think people don’t notice. To enjoy that fully, you have be aware of the style and then judge how the chef has either turned in a very good example of it or else how he’s chosen to break a little with it (and be excited by those things). It also kills me that every visitor says something about how they got fruit at the end and it was ‘so simple, so humble, so fresh’, when what they really mean is “The only dessert I got was FRUIT?!”

  3. A well-stated if, admittedly somewhat jaded, post. I confess I very often feel the same. You addressed the unique case of trying a chef’s classic dishes, but otherwise I more frequently find myself evaluating a tasting menu and, by extension, a restaurant by the quality and degree of new and/or novel experiences it provides. A tasting menu then serves as a means to try as a many dishes as possible in search of that “new” something.

  4. @ Derek: Thanks.

    @ Jon: Yes, I suppose that’s the difference between a culture that’s formally acknowledged and institutionalized the “tasting menu” and named it sacred (i.e. the Japanese and the “kaiseki”), and a culture that’s couched its tasting menu as a culinary expression and statement unique to a particular chef (i.e. the West and its “degustation”) when all it really is (and no one is willing to admit it) a boilerplate form by which they can guarantee an average check amount.

    Asia is totally different from the West, which is why I had made this caveat in the post above: “(I would include the rest of the world, but the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily eat the way people in the northern half of the Western hemisphere do).” And, for what it’s worth, I think fruit – especially good fruit – is a thoroughly acceptable (and often preferable) way to end a meal. I still dream about that spoon-ripe musk melon I had at masa.

    @ Bryan Z: Jaded? Guilty as charged. LoL. I agree with what you say, but I would add: for me, more than it “serves as a means to try as a many dishes as possible in search of that ‘new’ something,” a tasting menu serves as a means to try as many dishes as possible in order to understand the chef and to discover the world of food through his/her eyes. Even if nothing “new” appears, I’d be happy walking out having gained a better understanding or having a different perspective of the “old.”

  5. “But I truly relish those rare occasions when chefs surprise me with something novel, something that steers a wide berth around cliches, and – most importantly – something wholly theirs.”

    Would you put l’Arnsbourg in that category? Particularly, with the breadth and playfulness of the amuses and the ‘invitation to discover’, I think Chef Klein enters some territory that is “wholly [his].”

    “in order to understand the chef and to discover the world of food through his/her eyes.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

  6. Then there are meals conceived as a whole, where each course stands alone and is a stage for what comes next as well as an amplifier of what came before. David Kinch’s Manresa, based on one experience and lots of vicarious eating does this as few others do.
    Jinhua, NYC

  7. @ Joel: Indeed.

  8. I realize that my response is long, long after the original post but I thought you might appreciate my tale of the most whimsical table-side entertainment I have ever encountered:

    A friend and I ate at Troisgros. What I would call the first dessert, your Something Pre-Sweet, was named Flocons de neige, à la passion. First, the staff wheeled over a cart bearing a large bronze tureen piled high with blocks of meringue. Then we were each given a plate with a dark, crisp gingerbread Xmas tree on it. Then the waiters brought forth the rasps….

    Gleefully silly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,481 other followers

%d bloggers like this: