"Cooks" versus "chefs"

[TygrBright]

This is a friendly ongoing rag I do with a chef pal of mine, we come up with comparisons. Feel free to chime in!

Chefs 'plate' food-- cooks dish it up.

Cooks make hotdish or casserole-- chefs make a ragout.

Chefs cut a chiffonade of vegetables or herbs-- cooks cut them into fine strips.

Cooks make jelly-- chefs make aspic.

And so on, and so on, and so on...

provocatively,
Bright

[Warpy]

1. Chefs turn out a varitey of complete meals for 200 people a night

Cooks serve one dinner to a hungry family.

I'm a pretty decent cook, but there is no way I could be a chef.

[NMDemDist2]

2. I agree with Warpy and always remember Bright

Presentation IS everything!

:evilgrin:

[Stinky The Clown]

3. See Tony Bourdain's book, Kitchen Confidential' for some insight

The talented Mr. Bourdain calls himself a cook.

The foppish Mr. Flay fancies himself a chef.

[NMDemDist2]

4. oooo Thanks! I forgot I have his Lebanon show DVR'd

I need to watch that today!

[chefgirl]

5. Lord knows how I adore Tony Bourdain, but

The only thing I'll add to this is, all chefs are cooks but all cooks are not chefs.

-chef-

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

6. I read his book & I never really got the impression that

he was/is a great chef/cook/whatever. I think he knows quite a bit about food & he wrote a good book dissing the restaurant industry & I think he knows good food, but I never read anything about him developing recipes or anything for the restaurants he cooked at. And I've never read anything about him coming up with some new trend. (No matter how annoying the trend might be I've gotta give credit to the people who came up with them.)

Anyhoo, did I miss something about him being a great cook/chef/whatever? I've always just had the impression he's famous for dishing dirt not food.

:hi:

[chefgirl]

7. Yes, I think you might have missed something about him.

Not sure if you were replying to me directly, or just putting that out there, but I do have a thought or two that I can answer your question with, I think.

While you're right about him not creating any great new trends in the culinary world, I'm not entirely convinced that THAT is the mark of a great chef. In fact, I'm not even sure I think of him as a 'great chef' in that sense, although, he didn't end up working at 'Les Halles'(sp?)because he's a hack, either.

I do think that he has added his voice to the current culinary milieu, in this country, and has brought the perspective of the professional chef to the public, through his writings and TV shows, in a way no one else has before.

While he has managed to strip down the mystery of what professional chefs are all about, he has added a certain allure to the daily grind of a working chef for those who are not in the business. In his books and his shows, he really personifies what makes us continue in this ridiculously competitive, ball breaking, physically demanding but gloriously rewarding (sometimes) profession.

I can't speak for others, but those are a few of the reasons why I have great admiration for him. He is the real deal.
(Doesn't hurt that he's smokin' hot either!) :evilgrin:

-chef-

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

10. Thank you for your response.

Yes, I was asking you since I thought you would be the most qualified to answer.

I don't think coming up with the latest trend is the mark of a great chef either, however it certainly gets them attention & I have to give points for dreaming them up. Tower food anyone? How about a little foam on your plate? Fava beans over ice cream? Can't get enough of it. :barf:

And while I think there are chefs/owners with their own shows that at one time deservedly earned praise for their restaurants & recipes, now seem to be living on past glory. And Tony can't even live on the past glory since he never owned his own restaurant.

Okay, before I get killed by all his fanclub here I'll go :hide:

(Oh, I do agree he's hot)

[Warpy]

15. I know whre the tall food fad came from

because most of my friends back home were art school grads who got tired of starving in Beacon Hill garrets and turned to food.

Since there are only so many ways to turn out palatable foodstuffs, they turned their ingenuity into creating sculptural presentations.

Yeah, I thought it was dumb, too, but I understood where it was coming from.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. The real deal, indeed.

He and so many others, largely all of only modest fame. Who can recall Jean-Louis Palladin, now sorely off to his reward far too young. **HE** was a chef. And a cook. And almost certainly the first of the great 'rock star' chefs. (Hint: the start of Richard Nixon's downfall.)

So many people who are seen as chef/trendsetters are actually good journeyman cooks who are skiled self-promoters. As Bourdain so rightly says, they tend to cause people to gravitate toward good food and get some appreciation for it, thereby upping the value of all competent cooks and the far fewer real chefs.

I dare say, if Bourdain's description of his role at Les Halles is true (I have no reason to think its not), he's a chef. That would mean he is not only - or not even - the guy riding the range but the guy that orchestrates the entire service. The maestro, if you will.

[Shakespeare]

8. He's a Le Cordon Bleu grad, and has spent his entire career in kitchens.

In other words, he's a classically trained chef, and that's what his entire professional emphasis has been. His book didn't "diss" the restaurant industry so much as it was a very candid insider's memoir. His Les Halles cookbook (including classics as well as recipes he developed) is one of the best cookbooks I've ever laid hands on. I highly recommend it (and I also highly recommend Kitchen Confidential).

Frankly, I very much admire his position on the whole "celebrity chef" fad. He hates seeing personality be bigger than the food--especially if said personality lacks solid culinary training and experience--but concedes that if it's leading people to expand their culinary horizons, then it's a good thing.

[Karenca]

9. I love Bourdain...

I loved his book
and I love his show.

and, I find him very handsome.
:loveya: :loveya:

But, 'Les Halles"
does not compare with Bolo or Mesa Grill.

It''s just a so-so bistro.

[Tab]

11. Yes, that's the perception

but I've read a number of books by and/or about chefs/cooks, and the really good ones think of themselves as "cooks". They think "chef" is pretentious.

Interestingly, they make a distinction between being a "cook" or a "baker". The mindsets are totally different. Cooking is very much in the moment, short-term, if you will. Baking is preparation, construction, then monitoring and waiting. You screw up what you're baking, you're toast (so to speak). You can't redo the project in any acceptable amount of time if you're doing it under a deadline. Cooking you can measure instantly, baking is another world. Basically cooking is manipulating dead or intert stuff, baking is managing live stuff (yeast) where all sorts of things in the environment come into play, not the least of which is humidity, and the thing you're manipulating is alive.

And I agree. I am naturally "cook". I am not "baker". That's not to say I can't make a loaf of bread, but I get the mindset of "cook" much more easily than I gravitate toward the mindset for "baker". And I know bakers that can't cook to save their life, but they love baking.

Go figure.

[TygrBright]

12. Well... for the record...

I have great respect for those who follow the vocation of creating great food, WHATEVER they prefer to be called. The only professional in the field I know personally is designated by the title "chef," but he has no preference-- and no pretension. Just a fierce love for good food well prepared.

However, he enjoys a little back-and-forth about the whole chef/cook thing and a gentle fun-poking at the many pretensions the profession seems to evoke-- not only in its practitioners, but in the larger world of gourmands, groupies, and foodies in general. And he is driven wild by novelty for novelty's sake (as opposed to 'real experimentation designed for real human consumption') and 'food porn' (that is, food designed to LOOK good, as opposed to tasting good.) He takes pity on my ineptitude and encourages me in my thumb-fingered efforts to create edible food, and I think he invented the "Cooks versus chefs" game just to de-mystify some of the more abstruse and/or intimidating parts of the process (not to mention the pretentious bits.)

I had no intention of igniting controversy or belittling professionals, just thought others might like to play, too.

diffidently,
Bright

[Warpy]

19. I guess I hijacked the thread, mea culpa

However, the point has been made that the best, most innovative chefs out there call themselves COOKS and that most of the ones who call themselves chefs are prancing nitwits.

So a chef sears the meat and deglazes the pan. A cook browns the meat and makes gravy.

Better?

[NMDemDist2]

20. hehehe I did a thread about my Beans and Rice recipe and said

"Use the broth to "wash" the fry pan and get all the ham taste out"

and i was informed it was called "deglazing"

i never knew! :rofl:

[Duer 157099]

14. Good thread topic

I've wondered about this myself.

I've noticed that nobody has mentioned the show "Hell's Kitchen" -- I've watched both seasons because I'm just that kind of person who likes "reality" shows, and one thing that I just can't reconcile:

The sous chefs who are assigned to the teams -- why aren't they more qualified than the contestants? I mean, why not just give them a restaurant, since they seem the most qualified?

I love cooking, I love learning about cooking and food, but I could never consider going into it as a profession, it just seems so utterly grueling and demanding. I can't even imagine it. I realize there must be an attraction, but I can't exactly see what it is.

I've often wished I could open a restaurant but I know I never could (first off, I'd be going crazy watching food get tossed in the garbage! I'd have to have a kennel of dogs to feed the scraps to or something).

[Stinky The Clown]

16. " ........ it just seems so utterly grueling and demanding."

It is. I graduated from the Culinary Institute of America in the very early 70's. I worked on year cooking full time, then changed to managing, then went into consulting, which I have been doing since 1980.

Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential is a reasonably accurate look behind the curtain.

As to why ....... I'm sure its different for everyone. For me it was, in part, the ability to be creative and see immediate results. It was the prospect of entertaining people and getting that sort of feedback, too. But most of all, it was simply a love of food and good drink. I got out of it because those needs wind up being unmet pipe dreams. The work is just plain hard and taxing, the hours suck, and the rewards, while possible, are often just not enough to compensate for the work. Others who stay in the business (and I envy them) see it differently.

[Duer 157099]

17. This is a serious question...

but what is "consulting" in this context? I mean, how do you get such a job, and what does it entail?

I know that on DU you are certainly a respected and admired consultant, but in the real world, how do you do that? (maybe *that's* what my missed calling was?)

[Stinky The Clown]

18. I'm a restaurant designer

Before I went to CIA I studied engineering. The two tracks merged in what I do now.

[chefgirl]

21. Ok, I had to add this...

It IS grueling and back breaking with killer hours and a LOT of just plain hard work.

For me, though, its always been about being able to do something I love to do all day every day and get paid for it. I always figured, if I have to work for a living, it might as well be something I enjoy and can do reasonably well. I honestly cannot imagine myself doing anything different.
I've worked in kitchens almost my entire life, except for two other jobs.
When I was younger, I managed a Hallmark store for three years, and while I enjoyed the work because I've always been kind of an 'artsy craftsy' person, it finally became old and boring to me.

I also worked in an office (typing, filing, answering phones, etc) for a little more than a year, and oddly enough, no kitchen Ive ever worked in has caused me to be as brain fried at the end of a day as working in an office.

Cooking for a living is always exciting, always new, always fun, and provides immediate opportunities to feed my creative side and prove myself every single day.
I actually thrive on the start of the dinner rush, and it feels like victory every time we get through the rush and we know we've kicked ass! I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, I love my work.

I AM a chef and I do refer to myself as such, (and for the poster upthread) I dont think that qualifies me as a 'prancing nitwit'. I worked hard in culinary, and worked even harder in kitchens for years to live up to my title, and I'm proud of what I've been able to accomplish.

-chef-

[chefgirl]

22. Ok, last one...

Boy, you guys have me posting more in this thread than I have in the last six months!

This was a really good question, though, and I couldnt pass it up.

The sous chefs who are assigned to the teams -- why aren't they more qualified than the contestants?

I can assure you, the sous chefs ARE more qualified than the contestants, its just that you dont see that in the limited snippets that you actually see of the kitchen in that show.
(yes, I admit I watched a few episodes. Mondays are my days off)

At the moment, my position in the restaurant I work at is 'sous chef de cuisine'. Our staff is relatively small, and there's only one of me. My boss, who would be the 'Ramsey' is the Executive chef. We are the only two chefs in our kitchen, and the rest are line cooks.

The main difference, in our kitchen, between me and the exec, is that he is primarily responsible for the administrative duties, and I am primarily in charge of the 'work' of the kitchen and the line cooks.
I am every bit as qualified as he is, which is not to say he isn't a better cook than I am, (he probably is) but our training has been the same.

And incidentally, if I were one of those contestants, Ramsey would have found himself wearing a little risotto or lobster pasta if he EVER spoke to me the way he did to those poor people.
During my internship, I worked for a drunken, German, fascist chef, who was as hard as they come, but there is a line you DON'T cross, no matter how elevated you might consider yourself to be.

If a person screws up, they're fair game, obviously, but throwing food on people, name calling, etc.. a lot of that was just Ramsey playing for the cameras.

I would be willing to bet money he doesn't treat his real kitchen staff that way, because any crew worth their salt would jump right back in his face if he blatantly abused his authority the way he did on that show.

-chef-

[Duer 157099]

23. thanks for your input

I really appreciate the inside scoop.

I think the reason the sous chefs don't compete is because of exactly the reason you stated: they'd never tolerate being treated the way the contestants were -- and I agree that it was for the camera, but still...

The innerworkings of a restaurant kitchen fascinate me!