EPT[FOOD] The Best Thing I Ever Ate - Page 3
| Blogs > Cambium |
Empyrean
17070 Posts
| ||
|
iSometric
2221 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On January 09 2012 05:56 Djzapz wrote: I don't mean to be insulting but I guess I'll be a bit bitter about this, bear with me. Lately I've been reading audiophile forums and for a while now I've been occasionally reading beer and wine enthusiast reviews. I may be considered crude by many as when I try wine, I just shove it somewhere in the bad-good spectrum with a few particularities like one wine may have some explainable characteristics like sweetness and whatnot. Same thing with beer, some are more sweet than others and can be distinguished easily. For instance the OP talks about a "slight hint of sourness"... This means something. However when they go on about "instantly distinguishable as a premium", "possessed the fragrance of the freshest oil" "unctuous and refreshing at the same time", "rich nutty taste", "everything made perfect sense", "confidence" (???). -- I mean come on. I can't help to feel this is out of touch with reality and meant to give the writer some kind of "haughty" and "supercilious" stand above everyone else. I figure those people sit around tables covered with plates worth many hundred dollars with tiny glasses of expensive champagne, pinky up, talking about how Di Fara pizza is such a peasant dish, using obscene terms that belong in the 1800's. I don't understand how the description, "nutty taste" can seem out of touch with every day life at all. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 09 2012 10:20 koreasilver wrote: I don't understand how the description, "nutty taste" can seem out of touch with every day life at all. Well I guess the "rich" is just a little cheesy. Velvety! But no I don't think many people refer to the taste of nuts as a nutty taste. This banana split tastes bananey... no get out. | ||
|
Cool Cat
United States1644 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On January 09 2012 10:40 Djzapz wrote: Well I guess the "rich" is just a little cheesy. Velvety! But no I don't think many people refer to the taste of nuts as a nutty taste. This banana split tastes bananey... no get out. Are you serious? The description "nutty" is a very, very common word when describing taste. Same with "rich". I hear these words all the time from just daily every day life among family and friends and none of us have any special affinity in food or are involved in high cuisine or whatnot. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 09 2012 11:21 koreasilver wrote: Are you serious? The description "nutty" is a very, very common word when describing taste. Same with "rich". I hear these words all the time from just daily every day life among family and friends and none of us have any special affinity in food or are involved in high cuisine or whatnot. Well, admittedly that was not the thing that bothered me the most. Regardless, if you hear that some food is "rich" in some way daily every day, I suspect you've got snobbish people around you - either that or they watch too many cooking shows on TV. What does "rich" tell you? Whatever words you come up with, they're more adequate. On January 09 2012 11:18 Cool Cat wrote: For a "special interest" forum, it's interesting how non-accepting so many individuals on TL are of the specific interests of other individuals. I'm perfectly fine with the OP's interest - I just think the wording is nearly offensive because it's so weird and foggy. Who uses that vocabulary if it's not to impress and to be overbearing and pompous? I feel like that about so many food critics, wine so-called "connoisseurs", beer enthusiasts and audiophiles. Examples of lulz from the audio world: "The acoustic space and pinpoint timing of a Jazz band is reflected in the percussion, ensuring a particularly intimate experience." "a sense of overall balance and enjoyment." "sound "organic" yet are not boring" " They have a richness of tone that very few headphones or speakers redropuce, without sounding "lush"" "offering an excellent sonic window into the music." These were picked at random really - the things I've seen... They pick words that seem like they might fit to sound educated or something. It's fine to love your headphones, and it's fine to talk in details about how specific equipment sounds. It's fine to talk about the subtleties of some food - but don't cross in the rainbow'ey land of sugarcoating everything with fancy lingo that doesn't actually mean anything. | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
On January 09 2012 09:17 Empyrean wrote: If it was dinner, the dish was part of a $220 prix-fixe set, I believe. =O... *looks into wallet.... only $10.." damn it.. lol | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
"sound "organic" yet are not boring HAHAHA this got me the best, it would be great if they elaborated on what "organic" was supposed to mean tho .. I think it's a little hasty to write it off as BS because everyone thinks very differently and could very well whole-heartedly believe in what they are saying. After all, once you spend such a huge amount of time with something, your thinking and experience with the subject becomes different from the average layman who has very little experience with it. Music is one such example I can relate with, where experienced higher-level musicians can point out and notice things that your average person will not be able to distinguish. Things like whether or not the pitch is just a quarter-tone off, or details of how the phrasing should work, what kind of certain sound the performer needs to get out of the piano, or the subtleties of bow technique. All of which could probably sound like nonsense to someone else, but make perfect sense to me and few others. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1018 Posts
To address some of the music ones: "The acoustic space and pinpoint timing of a Jazz band is reflected in the percussion, ensuring a particularly intimate experience." : Seems pretty straightforward. Being able to hear jazz percussion very clearly in the right space within the music will make things feel more intimate. "a sense of overall balance and enjoyment." Perhaps a bit wordy: could just read "a sense of overall balance" assuming we're talking about the different levels. "sound "organic" yet are not boring" Can't really make sense of this one out of context. " They have a richness of tone that very few headphones or speakers reproduce without sounding "lush"" With regard to music a richness of tone suggests a full, round sound. For example the tone of a Les Paul electric guitar is rich. In this case they are talking about the whole experience. An overly lush sound would suggest the individual tones are too rich, taking away from the overall experience. For example some people don't like Herbert on Karajan's orchestral sound for this reason. "offering an excellent sonic window into the music." Just a nice sounding synonym for: 'provides great clarity', but not really worth getting upset about. My point is there is nothing wrong with specialist vocabulary. Some people might be trying to sound clever, but most are not, and are just looking for ways to better articulate how they feel. I don't see what's wrong with any of the ops phrases (though I'll admit I don't know what unctuous means, not being a foodie myself). They help me understand what his experience was like, as well as getting some passion across. To stretch back to the music analogy, if I read a concert review, I don't want someone to tell me 'it sounded good'. I want them to tell me why, and with as much detail as possible. Finally to the original OP, great blog - it inspired me to read a load of your past ones too. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 10 2012 00:51 koreasilver wrote: It actually boggles me that anyone actually thinks the description "rich" is a snobby word. Jesus. This is some real ignorant vitriol. I've talked with some old Sicilian grannies that had humble and meager lives before they immigrated and they are the farthest thing from snobby. They have described some stews and sauces as "rich" various times. I can't even call you anti-intellectual. This is just a removal from and ignorance of expression in the public. Pretty ridiculous. It's a bit far fetched to suggest I'm ignorant because I think some words that are used are inadequate. Whether they're snobbish or misused common language doesn't really matter - I'm just saying they're vague BS words that people throw around. Regardless, like I said, the whole "rich" thing isn't what bothered me the most. Making a big deal out of my most shaky example and uttering garbage like "anti-intellectual" when you're talking to a masters student is just not useful. I would happily agree to disagree but you had to attack me personally. Not impressed. ___ To Tal Seems pretty straightforward. Being able to hear jazz percussion very clearly in the right space within the music will make things feel more intimate. No, it will not make things feel more "intimate". Just a nice sounding synonym for: 'provides great clarity', but not really worth getting upset about. A "sonic window into the music" is just fancy wording. My point is there is nothing wrong with specialist vocabulary. Some people might be trying to sound clever, but most are not, and are just looking for ways to better articulate how they feel. I don't see what's wrong with any of the ops phrases (though I'll admit I don't know what unctuous means, not being a foodie myself). They help me understand what his experience was like, as well as getting some passion across. To stretch back to the music analogy, if I read a concert review, I don't want someone to tell me 'it sounded good'. I want them to tell me why, and with as much detail as possible. There's a difference between specialist vocabulary and pseudo-specialist/pseudo-intellectualism. Now I'm not saying OP doesn't know what he's talking about, but in French we call it "beurrer épais". I suppose in English "laying it on thick". Even though a review of something shouldn't be "it was good" or "it was bad", there are limits. I really don't think "intimate" is a word that can be used to talk about the effect of timing offered by some headphones while listening to Jazz - unless you plunge deep into the world of shaky metaphors that can be interpreted in a billion ways. I've read a lot of honest reviews of wine/beer/music/food where the writer limits himself to terms that actually have a fixed meaning rather than vague terms like "rich" which can be use to describe anything from an apple pie and it's particular taste or its overwhelming sweetness, to a soup's wide variety of different ingredients. Do you know what it means when I say I think an omelet has a rich taste or do you have to try to guess? Do you know what's an epitome of confidence when talking about food? But like I said, I'm not completely closed off to this kind of stuff, but I sincerely think that many people go way over the line and use words wrong - both in the so called "elite" and in the small times folks. It may be because of ignorance or tradition. One of my teachers once said "you know you're getting pretty good at what you do when people stop understanding what you're talking about". However, most of my teachers seem to understand that that's not particularly useful. I'm not an idiot, far from it although Koreasilver would disagree, but I've had texts and books to read that were written by incredibly smart men who simply didn't have the capacity to convey ideas properly. Especially in my first language, I can translate texts from "Bullshit Jargon French" to "Simplified yet specific French". However, academics have an advantage - even when they write using uncommon words, they're not fumbling around in the fancy world of poetry where things may mean whatever the reader wants. | ||
|
billy5000
United States865 Posts
| ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On January 09 2012 10:40 Djzapz wrote: Well I guess the "rich" is just a little cheesy. Velvety! But no I don't think many people refer to the taste of nuts as a nutty taste. This banana split tastes bananey... no get out. nutty buttery fruity salty creamy | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d113/DJZapZ/Nutty.jpg) While buttery is quite ridiculous (and just like nutty, happens to be a word that means something else), fruity, salty and creamy happen to be words that can be used here - and describe something relatively precisely. But ok, nutty isn't that bad - it's cute and stuff. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1018 Posts
On January 10 2012 02:46 Djzapz wrote: ]It's a bit far fetched to suggest I'm ignorant because I think some words that are used are inadequate. Whether they're snobbish or misused common language doesn't really matter - I'm just saying they're vague BS words that people throw around. Regardless, like I said, the whole "rich" thing isn't what bothered me the most. Making a big deal out of my most shaky example and uttering garbage like "anti-intellectual" when you're talking to a masters student is just not useful. I would happily agree to disagree but you had to attack me personally. Not impressed. You did say: What does "rich" tell you? Whatever words you come up with, they're more adequate which is worth taking issue with, as actually it acts as a useful short hand. Though yes, no need for personal attacks - this is TL. No, it will not make things feel more "intimate". Ah, I didn't realise your problem was with intimate. But even this is OK - though it would normally be used to describe a good recording of a singer songwriter rather than jazz. Just a nice sounding synonym for: 'provides great clarity', but not really worth getting upset about. A "sonic window into the music" is just fancy wording. If the meaning is clear what's wrong with a little fancy wording? Isn't that the point of synonyms, to make language richer? There's a difference between specialist vocabulary and pseudo-specialist/pseudo-intellectualism. Now I'm not saying OP doesn't know what he's talking about, but in French we call it "beurrer épais". I suppose in English "laying it on thick". Even though a review of something shouldn't be "it was good" or "it was bad", there are limits. I really don't think "intimate" is a word that can be used to talk about the effect of timing offered by some headphones while listening to Jazz - unless you plunge deep into the world of shaky metaphors that can be interpreted in a billion ways. I've read a lot of honest reviews of wine/beer/music/food where the writer limits himself to terms that actually have a fixed meaning rather than vague terms like "rich" which can be use to describe anything from an apple pie and it's particular taste or its overwhelming sweetness, to a soup's wide variety of different ingredients. But that's not how rich is used. Like I said before, it's about the heavy, powerful taste.. If someone writes about a soups richness they're not trying to tell you it has a wide variety of ingredients, but rather it's taste. If they talk about a "rich variety of ingredients" that's a completely different use - meaning not just wide, but also suggesting quality, or rarity. Do you know what it means when I say I think an omelet has a rich taste or do you have to try to guess? I've never eaten an omelet that could be described as rich, but I would know what you mean. Do you know what's an epitome of confidence when talking about food? It would be better to just talk about confidence, generally I don't like the word epitome for the same reasons as you, but I do know what they mean. But like I said, I'm not completely closed off to this kind of stuff, but I sincerely think that many people go way over the line and use words wrong - both in the so called "elite" and in the small times folks. It may be because of ignorance or tradition. Yes, I think you're right about this, I've also seen many examples of this - but perhaps the OP isn't a great example of going way over the line. A lot of the problem isn't just words, but style of writing - excessive hyperbole winds me up the most, maybe because that's how I used to write. One of my teachers once said "you know you're getting pretty good at what you do when people stop understanding what you're talking about". However, most of my teachers seem to understand that that's not particularly useful. I'm not an idiot, far from it although Koreasilver would disagree, but I've had texts and books to read that were written by incredibly smart men who simply didn't have the capacity to convey ideas properly. Especially in my first language, I can translate texts from "Bullshit Jargon French" to "Simplified yet specific French". However, academics have an advantage - even when they write using uncommon words, they're not fumbling around in the fancy world of poetry where things may mean whatever the reader wants. Yeah, I disagree with the teacher. If you understand something you should be able to explain it clearly. However, this doesn't mean you need to approach the reader as absolutely ignorant, but rather as an educated person who has an interest in your subject. Thanks for the well argued posts - I get the impression we're not actually that far away from the same position. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 10 2012 10:06 Tal wrote: Thanks for the well argued posts - I get the impression we're not actually that far away from the same position. Likewise! I think my position is more nuanced now too - not that it's a big existential question ^^ Cheers! | ||
| ||
