> There are all kinds of good things about the kitchen and bar getting
> closer to each other. I wouldn't argue with that. However there are
> opposite side effects. Sometimes it does not seem like the culinary
> adventures are always for the sake of creating a better drink but
> instead for the sake of creating a different drink and winning a
> recipe competition. Empowered by these many competitions, the use of
> non-traditional ingredients and preparations has become a popular but
> also gimmicky style. Sometimes it is the 'being non-traditional'
> itself which is seen as the good thing instead of the result of it.
> If such thinking becomes mainstream it will not improve the drinks.
When I first started bartending, and started taking part in drinks
competitions, I was always very sceptical of the drinks that some bartenders
were creating. For me, it was always about being as off-the-wall as possible
and had nothing to do with the drink, which I always believed should've been
the focal point.
It wasn't until Philip Duff made an analogy between drinks competition and
fashions shows that it really made sense to me. What you see on a catwalk
isn't what you'll see on the High Street. The point of catwalk shows is to
inspire, to create new trends, to revive old, and to give people a taster of
what's to come. Transfer that ideology to bartending and you get the point of
drinks competitions.
One of the best places for any bartender to learn is at a cocktail
competition, so to say 'if such thinking becomes mainstream it will not
improve the drinks' is quite frankly nonsense. It already has improved
drinks, and bartenders for that matter.
> Especially if people try to do something which they call molecular
> mixology it may end up like a circus instead of a drink which people
> like to drink, if it is drinkable at all. I believe that this
> molecular cuisine trend copied from the kitchens hasn't done a lot
> good behind the bar yet. (which does not mean that molecular mixology
> is intrinsicly bad and always done in a bad manner)
Again, that's not true. The problem that some people have is that they don't
truly understand the molecular side of mixology, and think it's some new fad
that won't last. That's not true at all, it's been around for a very long
time, as far back as the mid 1800's in fact.
For example, a large majority of bars produce layered shooters, Pousse Cafes
if you will. That's molecular mixology in its purest form. And what about
layering ice-cold cream, on top of boiling hot coffee, that's been layered on
top of whisky? That's molecular mixology, and that's been around for decades.
> Maybe, like with other fashionable items, you have the cocktail stuff
> for museums and shows and the stuff for at home and to consume. I
> think of those competition-drinks as a sort of haute cocktailing
> which is to explore and showcase new ideas and trends. The drinks
> themselves won't be widely distributed except for at a few speciality
> bars (cocktail boutiques). What you see in most bars is more like the
> pret-a-boirer style of drinks.
You've pretty much hut the nail on the head here. Not every bar will be able
to showcase the most advanced techniques, but if even one technique were to
make the crossover to every bar, then it has served its purpose.
> When Jerry Thomas made it's own stuff it was a different time. Now,
> we have all the things already available which he had to make.
That's the daftest argument I've ever read. ;)
> More often than not, purity, a single ingredient can be a fine drink on
> it's own now. It is not for nothing that people pay hundreds of
> dollars for certain wines, cognacs, whiskies, etc. Another example
> based on value is that mixing ingredients often doesn't make a drink
> a lot more valuable. The price of a mixed drink is mostly determined
> by the sum of the prices of it's components. Mixing adds little
> value. A single ingredient can already be the most valuable thing.
> Because of the already exquisite flavours in single ingredients many
> good classic mixed drinks only change a few components about it. More
> is not needed (except if you only want to wow and do something new
> and original).
I don't know of any bartender that's mixing these expensive ingredients in
cocktails, so I don't really know what your point is here? There are spirits
that are created for sipping that, for the large part, most bartenders
wouldn't bother adding to a mixed drink, then there are spirits that are
perfectly suited to mixing, and those are the ones that bartenders ARE using
in mixed drinks.
> It is good that many cocktails are now improved by adding fresh
> ingredients. Especially since freshness (as it means presence of
> those attributes of ingredients which are not stable) can not be
> captured in a bottle but it must be added just before serving the
> drink. Still a lot of preparations are cumbersome and are not
> necessarily done behind the bar. There shouldn't be a place for them
> behind the bar if it could be done by the industry. Outsourcing those
> things to other professionals gives opportunities to spend time on
> other things. You won't find many restaurants slaughtering their own
> cows and pigs. They leave that up to other professionals who can do
> it better.
Again, I totally disagree with what you're saying as you're comparing apples
to oranges. Here's a simple analogy:
Chefs won't rear their own pigs/cows, instead they'll source their meat from
the best producer they can find, someone who is an expert in their field, pun
intended. The chef will then use this as the basis of many of their dishes,
and accompany it with their own homemade/homegrown produce that they feel will
bring the best out of the meat they've selected.
Bartenders won't age their own tequila/rum, instead they'll source their base
spirit from the best producer they can find, someone who is an expert in their
field. The bartender will then use this as the basis of many of their
cocktails, and accompany it with their own homemade/homegrown produce that
they feel will bring the best out of the spirit they've selected.
There's absolutely NO reason why bartenders shouldn't make their own
syrups/bitters/etc. wherever possible. To say they shouldn't because they're
readily available is just ridiculous.
> It is true that at the current time distilleries don't offer a bacon infused >
> whisky. I believe however that in time such things will improve.
I think it's safe to say that we won't see bacon-infused whisky on the shelves
any time in the near future, if at all.
> The people who create these new trends and try to improve their
> products are doing a good thing. However there is a large group who
> does not have all the expertise to do everything by themselves still
> they will copy all those trendy ideas and create badly styled
> drinks.
So are you saying that highly-skilled bartenders shouldn't make these drinks
because they will be copied by people who don't have the skill to do it? :/
--
Bar Consultancy, Training and Events
http://www.evo-lution.org
"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."
Henry Youngman