I agree with many of your arguments but I am also not against things like,
competitions, molecular approaches, home-made stuff, experiments, etc. I am
only against doing it at a large scale (the answer to why one should not do
it). Surely I recognize potential but my arguments are for doing these things
in a moderate way.
>
> 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.
>
I agree that there is a good influence from those competitions. However the
show performed behind the bar must not become too much like the show in those
competitions.
> > 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.
>
Molecular mixology can be given many different definitions. Indeed it can be
appointed to the way of creating drinks which already existed since people
started layering different ingredients. I intentionally did not explicitly say
that it is molecular mixology itself which is not leading to anything good in
bartending (because I think it is a stupid name which is badly defined).
I am talking about the current molecular cuisine trend and the things which
people currently call molecular mixology (the stuff with thickening agents and
other sorts of chemicals). At the present time nobody would say he is doing
molecular mixology if he makes a layered shot. That's not how the name is used
in practice. I am talking about the trend. The trend is objectionable for its
excessiveness.
> > 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.
>
> > 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? :/
No. I see the trends as a good thing. Highly-skilled bartenders should make
those drinks. However what is wrong are the people wearing inappropriate (e.g.
to tight) clothes only because they are the latest trend. Of course it is not
the clothes which are wrong but instead those people who make to decision to
wear the wrong ones. I am against trying to fit every bar in too tight trends.
>
> 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.
>
The point is that the most valuable drinks do not require work done behind the
bar but instead are made by the industry who have much better machinery and
knowledge in order to create quality products. More people should recognize
that. The creative work behind the bar is and will always be limited to a
humble final touch.
>
> 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.
>
I personally make a distinction between fresh products and products with a
high stability. Adding fresh notes is necessarily done behind the bar but for
stable products there is less motivation.
The reason not to do things by your own is because others can do it just as
well giving you opportunities to spend time on other things which you are good
in (a bar is not just about the drinks). Of course doing things by your own
increases control over the whole production chain instead of being dependant
on what is available and one might do it for less costs. One has to weigh
these points against each other and decide how far to go with creating own
drink ingredients. The fact that the economy has grown and logistics have
improved makes outsourcing a more favourable option than it was in the past. I
do not want to say that it is always an option. Just more favourable
> > 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. ;)
>
It is just an argument against the following
> Read your old school bar manuals - all the way back to the days of Jerry
> Thomas they were hand making their own syrups, using herbs and creating their
>
> own tinctures. ALL of this falls under the category of culinary. "Cookery"
> has been a part of bartending for as long as people have been drinking. than
> it > used to be.
As stated before the decision making upon which to decide for or against
outsourcing has changed due to changes in availability of products from the
industry. Your arguments could also be used to argue that bars should be
making their own beer, wine, glassware, etc. Because... why wouldn't they? Why
does it matter that different professional brews (or wine and glasses) are
readily available? You can't fight the world becoming more and more
industrialised. You will also notice this in the bar. (maybe the current
home-made trend is a reaction against this industrialisation or just an era
where the industry is walking behind trends)
> > 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.
>
I don't think it is safe but instead we can't make good predictions. That's
why I say I believe. Also distillers don't need to make them it could be done
by small reseller companies.