Dear cooks,

Here's something that has been a research subject of mine for quite a
while. I'm now trying to compile a comprehensive report on the subject
and would be interested in some input.

The question can be best illustrated by an example:

Preparing a long and slow cooking dish, say a beef stew, one usually
starts by chopping some vegetables (carrots, onions, garlic, celery and
such), throw in some aromatic herbs and pices, saute, put aside. Next
one may brown the meet and deglaze the pan. Next all ingredients may be
added to a large pot and liquids are added. Various stocks can be used,
wine or water. Now comes the part when the pot simmers for a long time
and the kitchen is filled with irresistible aromas. Now...

At some point one may want to see how things are going? What progress
has been made? Do we need to correct something?
This is done by taking a sip of the liquids. You need to decide: Should
I add liquid? Should I remove main ingredient and reduce liquids? Is the
flavor well balanced? Will it be overintense if I reduce too much?

These are difficult questions to answer in a formal manner. Most people
would tell you that they simply use their hunch and experience. That's
quite alright.

Every cook has a set of method for balancing the flavor of sauces and
stews. Some of those are quite innovative. For example, some cooks would
add something to balance a flavor. Salt and pepper is the natural
balancing pair. I've used lemon juice, honey, Tabasco sauce, soy sauce,
mustard, ketchup(!), and many other more and less acceptable additives.

I wish to compile a master flavor-balancing table of the following
structu

There are 7 columns.

1. Balance bias: one or more words describing the problem that needs
fixing. For example: salty, acidic, hot, sweet, bland, fishy, meaty,
etc, etc.

2. Ingredient: a name or names of the compound(s) to be used in fixing
the problem. For example: soy sauce

3. Preparation: treatment of the added ingredient prior to addition. For
example: mix together soy sauce, honey and a bit of water

4. Amount: how much? For example: a teaspoon of sugar.

5. Expected effect: reduce the heat of the stew, turn it somewhat milder

6. Warnings: what to avoid? what to beware of? For example: adding wine
toward the last stage of a slow cooking dish is not recommended because
it may raise acidity to much...

7. Notes: if needed, expand on the above.

I may want to categorize this table so that for different cooking
situations and challenges there may be an instance of this table that's
dedicated to the particular challenges of the category. For example:
beef stew, fish soups, reduction sauces, cream-based dishes, etc.

I wish to evolve this table to a point when it has numerous entries and
possibly several categories.

Do you think it is useful? Can you provide inputs? Help create and
populate this table?

Thanx,
*Yoram

>Do you think it is useful?

No. Sounds like trying to play jazz from a score.

>Do you think it is useful?

No. Sounds like trying to play jazz from a score.

Thanx. I actually think that you're being too harsh. This is an attempt
to record collective knowledge regarding techniques but I guess you're
not impressed.

Jazz is played from score -- you improvise on the basis of the score.
This is called interpretation. Please note the difference between
intepretaion and technique.

Of course, your contribution is gratefully noted.

*Yoram

WardNA wrote:

>>Do you think it is useful?
>
>
> No. Sounds like trying to play jazz from a score.

Thanx. I actually think that you're being too harsh. This is an attempt
to record collective knowledge regarding techniques but I guess you're
not impressed.

Jazz is played from score -- you improvise on the basis of the score.
This is called interpretation. Please note the difference between
intepretaion and technique.

Of course, your contribution is gratefully noted.

*Yoram


WardNA wrote:

>>Do you think it is useful?
>
>
> No. Sounds like trying to play jazz from a score.

Thanx. I actually think that you're being too harsh. This is an attempt
to record collective knowledge regarding techniques but I guess you're
not impressed.

Jazz is played from score -- you improvise on the basis of the score.
This is called interpretation. Please note the difference between
intepretaion and technique.

Of course, your contribution is gratefully noted.

*Yoram


WardNA wrote:

>>Do you think it is useful?
>
>
> No. Sounds like trying to play jazz from a score.

Yoram Ramberg wrote:
> Thanx. I actually think that you're being too harsh. This is an attempt
> to record collective knowledge regarding techniques but I guess you're
> not impressed.
>
> Jazz is played from score -- you improvise on the basis of the score.
> This is called interpretation. Please note the difference between
> intepretaion and technique.
>
> Of course, your contribution is gratefully noted.
>
> *Yoram
>
While I understand what you're attempting, it's extremely difficult if
not almost impossible to put together a "recipe" of how do correct
something. It is dependent on how it tastes at the time. If may
require a little or it may require a lot of adjustment.

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

Yoram Ramberg wrote:
> Thanx. I actually think that you're being too harsh. This is an attempt
> to record collective knowledge regarding techniques but I guess you're
> not impressed.
>
> Jazz is played from score -- you improvise on the basis of the score.
> This is called interpretation. Please note the difference between
> intepretaion and technique.
>
> Of course, your contribution is gratefully noted.
>
> *Yoram
>
While I understand what you're attempting, it's extremely difficult if
not almost impossible to put together a "recipe" of how do correct
something. It is dependent on how it tastes at the time. If may
require a little or it may require a lot of adjustment.

--
Steve

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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

I love making sauces and stews and I only use recipes as inspiration.
Never cocked 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.

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.

[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.]

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.
>
>

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.

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

I love making sauces and stews and I only use recipes as inspiration.
Never cocked 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.

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.

[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.]

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.
>
>

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.

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

I love making sauces and stews and I only use recipes as inspiration.
Never cocked 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.

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.

[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.]

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.
>
>

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.

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.

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.