Yoram Ramberg wrote:

> People,
>
> Believe me, I got your point loud and clear. You're not interested.
> That's absolutely fine. I also appreciate your views on the dubious
> venture of documenting the artistic, inspirational aspect of cooking. I
> did not intend to take a "scientific" approach to the art of flavor
> adjustment and formalize the concepts. I'm way more modest than that.

And yet you want a formulaic list...

Everybody from Apicius to Careme to Escoffier to Julia has tried to
offer these snippets of information. Books like Larousse Gastronomique
are all about flavor, texture, appearance, etc. They're not really
independent of each other. Things that change flavor can change color
and mouthful. And vice versa. It's like squeezing a water balloon.
Push it here, it bulges there.

> The intention here is to collect some good tips and organize them in an
> easily accessible format. That's all.

Actually, there's more to it that that. And less. The problem with the
idea you're promoting is that it's a terribly subjective thing, this
flavor business. We humans don't have a good vocabulary for sensory
experience, particularly when it's subtle, because of the
individuality of it all. We don't taste things the same way. We don't
agree on what's "good" or "bad."

"My sushi rice isn't quite right and I can't tell what's missing." Go
ahead, fix it. What's the process, an algorithm? If this, then this?
If not this, then this - or *not* this?

So what can one do when a sauce Chasseur isn't quite "meaty" enough?
Or when the flavors aren't quite "round" enough? Or if it just lacks
"sparkle?" The "body" is lacking? Look here <http://tinyurl.com/3mtnv>
and see the close but different recipes to make it. The subtle and
not-so-subtle differences are exemplars of the differences in our
reactions to the same essential list of ingredients and processes that
transform ingredients into finished formulae.

> I love making sauces and stews and I only use recipes as inspiration.
> Never coocked something by following a recipe to the letter. I read them,
> think about them, put them aside and put on the apron. This is certainly
> different from a computerized approach to the process, where one follows
> a structured, step by step process, measurements and such. No argument
> here.

And if you look at the Chasseur recipes, they're each meant to be
followed literally to get *that* result.

But not following it means you're not making what the recipe is
offering. You've changed it before you ever get to it. If you're not
starting from a common ground because you think your tastes won't like
it, you demonstrate how subjective the whole process is. I think it's
a bit silly to do it this way, though. You'll never know what the
recipe creator actually had in mind. First time, do it their way.
After that adjust it.

> Over the years (and I've logged quite a few of those...) I've develop a
> rich, yet undocumented, set of techniques for flavor adjustment. This is
> not "fixing" things -- it is an integral part of food making. I think
> that many other kitchen dwellers have a similar experience, whether they
> are professional chefs or simply like to cook for their friends
> occasionally. Sharing tips and techniques is not something foreign to
> this newsgroup -- this is what we do most of the time.
>
> Anyway, with not a single ounce of sarcasm I thank you for your views on
> the subject, hope I clarified my intent and will understand if you
> decide to not participate in this discussion (apparently most people
> share the disinterest...). I'm assuming you have much knowledge and
> experience and would love to hear your ideas but you're not obligated.
> You've already told me and others where you stand on this.

You don't get it. This is what every decent cookbook from time
immemorial has been about. There's an inherent contradiction between
what you do and what you seek for this compendium to do. If there's no
structure to how you deal with recipes, which are nothing more than a
string of tips, more tips won't be much help to people who don't
follow tips to begin with.

> [I've been using the Internet since 1984, am a professional computer
> networks developer, working as a software designer for a huge company
> that is building the Internet infrastructure equipment, know about this
> medium more than many but have yet to learn the risk of whispering
> something in any of these public forums. No good intention goes
> unpunished.]

Quit whining. It's a bad idea that can only work in gross terms. When
it gets beyond the level of "It obviously needs salt" the adjustments
become too individual to push into a matrix that can work universally.
This is where "knack" and "feel" emerge.

Pastorio

> Cheers!
> *Yoram
>
>
> zuuum wrote:
>
>> "WardNA" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Do you think it is useful?
>>>
>>> No. Sounds like trying to play jazz from a score.
>>
>> LOL.. that was a good one, Ward! While I always appreciate a
>> scientific approach to cooking, this particular endeavor seems a bit
>> futile. Rather than how-to, I think it is much easier to develop a
>> system of how-to-NOT.
>> In most cases it seems to me that I judge the texture (gelatinization
>> of stocks---that silky, smoothness) long before I start trying to
>> adjust flavor. Especially in the case of adding salt, apart from a
>> sachet or bouquet garni, most flavor adjustment would be long after
>> the primary reduction. The reference to wine addition might be an
>> exception.. but not always.
>>
>> There is a reason the saucier was long considered the star of the
>> classical brigade. There are many subtle facets of stock/sauce making
>> one can hardly reduce to a rigid formula.