| Quote: | |  | |
| Rose (RIP  ) came through Carluccio's kitchen, didn't she? | |
| | |
Don't think so. This is from the obit in the Telegraph:
| Quote: |  | |
| in the early 1980s they decided to sell their London home and move to Italy, where David could paint while Rose would try to write a cookbook. They rented a house near Lucca in Tuscany.
It was here that Rose began to take a serious interest in Italian cuisine, collecting recipes and learning about new ingredients. Progress on the book was interrupted, however, in 1985 when her husband had an exhibition in New York and she was invited over to work for a few months as a cook in a New York nightclub. It was the only professional cooking experience she had before Ruth Rogers contacted her about the River Café. | |
| | |
An exception automatically eliminates necessity, but doesn't affect value . . . I completely accept that training is valuable.
I get annoyed by words like 'essential' and 'necessary' though.
'Professional experience' is not the same as 'formal training'.
I don't doubt that it would be difficult to get a Michelin star without a brigade behind you (though there's a small Dim Sum restaurant in Hong Kong that may prove this wrong). I don't doubt that Rose Gray produced incredible food at home, without a brigade though.
No one's saying that experience in a professional kitchen isn't valuable, nor that formal training isn't valuable. But why go around saying this is better than home cooking and you can't be a good cook without this approach? For a start there are whole cuisines without a restaurant tradition, let alone a concept of haute cuisine.