CZ Talk:Recipes: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Index: some thoughts thereon (NOT, for heaven's sake, proposals!), a can of worms I don't want to open! Hmmm, should there be a recipe for worms?) |
imported>Aleta Curry (→Continental: Hayford, when you're right, you're right. And I ain't even a geezer....) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Continental == | == Continental == | ||
"Continental", I think, is the wrong word to use for this subgrouping, or grouping. The word, at least in the United States, used to have a very definite, although vague, meaning: a semi-French, semi-Italian, semi-SOMETHING sort of upscale cuisine, served in fancy restaurants, that was NOT what was plainly recognized as American-type food. Some of the best restaurants in Los Angeles, say, in the 1950s and 1950s, such as Perino's, La Rue, and Scandia, as well as a whole bunch of others, served what was generally called "Continental Cuisine". I think that the phrase has now disappeared, except, perhaps, in an ironic sense, but to geezers like me it seems wrong to use it as proposed here. I dunno what else to suggest, however.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (CST) | "Continental", I think, is the wrong word to use for this subgrouping, or grouping. The word, at least in the United States, used to have a very definite, although vague, meaning: a semi-French, semi-Italian, semi-SOMETHING sort of upscale cuisine, served in fancy restaurants, that was NOT what was plainly recognized as American-type food. Some of the best restaurants in Los Angeles, say, in the 1950s and 1950s, such as Perino's, La Rue, and Scandia, as well as a whole bunch of others, served what was generally called "Continental Cuisine". I think that the phrase has now disappeared, except, perhaps, in an ironic sense, but to geezers like me it seems wrong to use it as proposed here. I dunno what else to suggest, however.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (CST) | ||
:No, you're right. My grandfather had taken chef courses and there was definitely a style of American (read 'US') cooking called ''Continental'', a chi chi fon fon fon style. I don't know if that's where the "continental breakfast" came from - same idea or not, I mean. | |||
:Soo...was 'continental' here meant to mean 'sorted by continent'? Why don't we just do that, then? I started--change it back if you no like. | |||
:I can foresee a bit of a problem, though--is this going to end up being a listing by country? Then by region within country? Are we starting the CZ International Cookbook? | |||
:I don't actually care; I'm jus' sayin'. | |||
:[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 22:46, 22 February 2008 (CST) | |||
== Index == | == Index == | ||
Revision as of 22:46, 22 February 2008
| The metadata subpage is missing. You can start it via filling in this form or by following the instructions that come up after clicking on the [show] link to the right. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Continental
"Continental", I think, is the wrong word to use for this subgrouping, or grouping. The word, at least in the United States, used to have a very definite, although vague, meaning: a semi-French, semi-Italian, semi-SOMETHING sort of upscale cuisine, served in fancy restaurants, that was NOT what was plainly recognized as American-type food. Some of the best restaurants in Los Angeles, say, in the 1950s and 1950s, such as Perino's, La Rue, and Scandia, as well as a whole bunch of others, served what was generally called "Continental Cuisine". I think that the phrase has now disappeared, except, perhaps, in an ironic sense, but to geezers like me it seems wrong to use it as proposed here. I dunno what else to suggest, however.... Hayford Peirce 10:27, 22 February 2008 (CST)
- No, you're right. My grandfather had taken chef courses and there was definitely a style of American (read 'US') cooking called Continental, a chi chi fon fon fon style. I don't know if that's where the "continental breakfast" came from - same idea or not, I mean.
- Soo...was 'continental' here meant to mean 'sorted by continent'? Why don't we just do that, then? I started--change it back if you no like.
- I can foresee a bit of a problem, though--is this going to end up being a listing by country? Then by region within country? Are we starting the CZ International Cookbook?
- I don't actually care; I'm jus' sayin'.
- Aleta Curry 22:46, 22 February 2008 (CST)
Index
Somewhere, and right from the beginning, we're gonna have to have a *really* good index for the recipes, one that is *truly* comprehensive, so that no matter how someone is looking for a particular recipe he/she will be able to *easily* find it. Each entry, of course, will have a redirect to a single recipe. In other words, Beef Burgundy, Boeuf a la bourguignon, Boeuf a la bourguignonne, Beef bourguignon, etc. Or, of course, an alternative: have a see Beef bourguignon etc. for all the variants, directing to whatever we decide is the principle name for each item.
In the iconic old New York Times Cookbook of 1961 edited by Craig Clairborne there was an excellent index that *also* included things like Martinis and a couple of other cocktails, since there was a brief drinks recipe section at the end of the food recipes. We would want to have drinks included in the master recipe....
A further thought: assuming we came up with different recipes (someone suggested iconic ones) for the same dish, the index could also look like:
- Hamburger
- Ray Krok's Big Burger
- Paul Bocuse's 'Omburgaire Extraordinaire
- Paul Prudhomme's Cajun 'Burger
- James Beard's George Washington's Favorite
- Etc.
Hayford Peirce 19:36, 22 February 2008 (CST)