I see... I guess that coming from professional kitchens i have a different definition of "good cook" (no offence to anyone )

Well, if you define a good cook as one who's been trained, that's all going to get a bit circular, isn't it?

but it means you know what you are talking about when you discuss art...

Aww, but he means well! Seriously, I do think he is really brave taking on what he has. Of course he makes money and all that but he could also lead a much easier live if he chose to. (I think the thread is derailed now, oops).

note to Walter... you shall not be controversial again...

love to keep going but have to declare end of play for today.. work to do, beers to drink et al... was fun though, let's do it again in front of a beer sometimes

Busted! Because I didn't go to art school (OMG, this thread!) And I have huge respect for chefs because it's not a job it's a vocation and it's bl**dy hard work.

Yeah and not only that but I would think he has got a helluva lot of people into their kitchens to at least try to cook, which can only be a good thing.

Rose Gray, who recently passed away, was certainly a good cook and was self-taught. Her only experience before opening the River Café was doing some catering and researching recipes in Italy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...-gray-obituary

Rose (RIP ) came through Carluccio's kitchen, didn't she?

you'll always find exceptions, IMPO my statement still stands: a good chef needs a professional background. River Cafe didn't get its Michelin star only because of Rose, but also thanks to the small army of trained sous, partie-s and commis slaving away at the stoves

I think you need to know the rules before you can break them.

Don't think so. This is from the obit in the Telegraph:

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.

Perhaps you could supply your definition of 'good cook'?

I'm sort of hoping that you've washed yours since...

yes she did, even if not for very long, I'll find the source when I'll have more time

why do you get annoyed? is my opinion, I doubt you are going to argue with someone's opinions... or are you?

I'm not arguing that, is not the point i'm arguing

if by home cooking you mean "cooking done by non professional cooks/chefs without experience or training", the answer is self-evident.
If, on the other hand, by home cooking you mean "pared-down recipes to suit the capability of everyone and the facility of a home kitchen", then I'd rather follow the recipes of someone who's done it properly and then pared it down than the ones of budding cooks

see below


you see, that's a bit of a problem. I see it from a professional point of view and I use a different set of criteria... you need a very solid and very broad knowledge of all the basics of cooking (methods, techniques, combinations of flavour), you need to have the ability to cook different cuisines (from restaurant standard to a humble spinach soup) and be aware of the subtle difference between very similar dishes. You have to know your ingredients inside out and have all the good combinations on your fingertips. You need to have the refinement of making superlative dishes constantly without fail. You need to know your seasoning. You need to know what to do when things go wrong and how wrong they can go before chucking the lot in the bin (used to start curdling the custard of my pastry chefs just to see their reaction... naughty me...). Also, a great chef is someone who inspires you and makes you want to become like him, stealing his secrets and , if legal, his hands and tongue... I could go on, but I think you get the idea

we could go on on this discussion until the cows come home... as I said, coming from professional kitchens I have a different benchmark of what makes a good cook.

This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the food cooked at home by amateur cooks. The Missus makes a hell of a gorgeous Shepard's Pie, does it makes her a great chef? No, because between the two there's a hell of al lot of water in the middle.

Is a matter of definitions... and opinions

Now, does this clarifies my point so I can go back to my beer and enjoy the sun on the terrace next to the cat?

... or we can take it up a notch and go to second inning...

But the original question was about what makes a good cook, not what makes a great chef. The word chef implies restaurant cooking and the management of a brigade.

I get annoyed by misuse of the words essential and necessary because they're generally used to get greater force to an argument than their meaning strictly allows. If you say something is necessary, but I can provide a counter-example, then sorry . . . it wasn't necessary after all.

The problem is that you have set up your definition to include professional training and/or experience. You just have to change your definition.

By the way, there's every chance that a home cook would be able to:

- Use seasoning
- Know about various techniques
- Cook from different cuisines (though I'd argue this is definitely not essential for being even being a great chef . . . there are great chefs who work solely within a single cuisine)
- uncurdling custard? Yep

No one makes 'superlative' dishes without fail: there is wastage even in 3 star kitchens

BTW - this still means that you should be able to recognise e.g. an Italian grandmother who cooks ten regional dishes magnificently as a 'good cook' and it's ridiculous that you wouldn't describe her as this.

chef, cook, cuoco... is just a matter of choice of language, doesn't imply having of not having a brigade behind you... unless you want to imply it purposely..

you are nit-picking here...

have not... this is what I think makes a good/great cook/chef... you are getting muddled up in semantic...

Shall we have a little head count and see how many? bear in mind that my concept of good seasoning may be slightly different from yours


that's not the point!!! which cuisine you like and decide to work with has nothing to do with what cuisine you are able to cook with. Do you think that Blanc only knows how to cook a coq-au-vin?? or that Blumenthal has no knowledge of stir-fries??


there is, when you are creating new recipes and you are fine tuning the flavours. BUT when you start putting dishes on the menu, wastage goes to almost nil... I know because my sister works in one... when you start working with ingredients like ambergris, you really don't want to waste them...

again... definition of...



I'm getting too old to do this....

MODS, CAN YOU PLEASE RENAME THIS THREAD AS "WG AND GG HAVING AN ARGUMENT"?

My option for the new thread is:

"WG says that home cooks can't be good cooks"

nah, rename as "WG says that home cooks can't be good cooks according to his standards" other people may have other standards ...

aaaaaaaaanyway, back to the OP, I find Slater very entertaining, even if on the telly it comes across as a grumpy miserable git...

Well, I've had Blumenthal's triple-cooked chips . . . They were not as good as many other frites and chips I've had elsewhere. That's beside the point though.

My point really is that there are definitely great chefs working in, for example, China, with minimal knowledge of Western cuisine.

As for whether I'm being pedantic or semantic . . . can I remind you that you're the one saying we can't use certain words because of your own restrictive definition.

use any words you like... I just don't agree with them