[Brittany]

So I've been looking at other chef's menus here in Toronto and can't help but notice how many of them are using terminology that doesn't apply to thier food. Like celery civiche. Huh? Or how if anything is towered, it suddenly becomes a napoleon. I could go on for hours, really, but I am a little too busy for that. I just gotta let this out though.
It's a trend that is really starting to get on my nerves. Are they trained like me? Do they know what civiche really is and that it kind of has to contain a protein and an acid in order for it to become civiche. It's just so downright dishonest and ignorant. Not only that, Napoleon is a dessert, not something fringing layered. Yes, I am using my "nice" language.
I can understand if you want to stretch the lines a little to make your food sound more exciting but really now!
Some ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
Carpaccio: Anything that is thinly sliced and laid out on a plate, anything!!
fricasse: Anytime vegtables are served with a little bit of sauce,
****ing waiters using the term, mise en place: There goes my nice language.
Brunoise: Pureed crap.
Truffle infused, fennel scented, corriander dusted, mind as well say you just charge the customer for something that isn't in the actual plate.

waiter, could I please have the civiche celery and polenta crustini napoleon to start with, then I would like the carrot carpaccio and salmon nicoise salad. That has no french beans or tuna in it, does it? No, oh good. I hate it when they make it like that. Than I would like to finish with a peach melba, oh wait, I mean fig melba. And I would like to palate cleanse with the heated lemon granite. Thank you very much and be sure to keep your mise en place coming.

[RAS1187]

One of my personal favorites is tomato bisque.

One of my teachers put it this way. You can charge $2-$3 for tomato soup, or $4-$5 for tomato bisque.

Personal observation leaves me with the feeling that Chefs want to include exotic terminology in the menu to justify charging more per plate.

When advertising a salad, brunoise vegetables sells the salad a little better then just saying diced or chopped vegetables.

I have yet to see how pureed vegetables can translate to brunoise on a menu, but I would have to agree that this one is pushing the border of honesty.

[KYHeirloomer]

I don't think this is a particularly new problem. And it mostly stems from two groups: people in my end of the business, who don't understand the terms they are using; and poorly trained chefs who think food writers know what they're talking about. Then, like topsy, it just grows.

What happens, far too often, is that they take the technique or approach used in a specific dish, and apply the name to anything using that technique.

I was, for instance, in a chain restaurant about a year ago that has a whole covey of Eggs Benedict variations---when the fact is, Eggs Benedict refers to a very specific assemblage of ingredients. Anything else may use the same approach, but it's a different dish.

Then there's the problem of trying to apply a familiar name to a different technique. My personal teeth-gnasher is when they say, "saute in wine (or juice, or water)." Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing! To saute means to cook quickly in a little oil. Cooking in a little water may or may not be healthier; but it is not sauteing. Similarly, any sauce made by reducing something and adding butter to it has now become a beurre blanque (one of these days I will learn how to spell that). And to get real trendy, anything with either gin or vodka is now a martini. Yeah, right!

Part of the problem, too, is that there's a poorly educated consumer who has heard these terms, seen them misused on the Food Network and in magazines, and thinks he knows what they mean. And when he goes to a restaurant, he expects to see them on the menu. If he sees a menu item listing "carpaccio of poached celeraic with bernaise sauce," he doesn't think, "hey, there's no such thing." He thinks, "hey, didn't Bobby Flay just make something similar." And happily orders it.

So, I don't think, in general, that most chefs are using these terms to intentionally mislead. I think they're dealing with the unfortunately reality of meeting their customers' expectations.

[Brittany]

You might be right about satisfying an uneducated population. But most chefs that do know the difference between a bernaise sauce and a hollandaise sauce, like to brag about it thier superior knowledge which leads me to think that the majority of chefs don't have a clue as to what they are doing or talking about.
Now who do we blame for this. Our over priced, over rated, culinary schools. The chefs that are training the next generation. Either way, I'm still a little annoyed and tickled by the situation. One of these days I will ask to see the chef and ask him, what on earth are you talking about. Do you even know what these terms really mean?

[Dirk Skene]

This is a pet peve of mine as well. Along with the theam ofthis thread I have a question. Why do we in the US call it "shrimp scampi." I always ask is it shrimp or is it scampi? I get blank staires.

[tcapper]

Hi

The term Mise en place can be used by anyone, quite simply this is getting your preperation done for a task. So a builder getting his sand, cement, stones and bricks together can quite rightly say he has got his Mise en place ready. it is not an exclusive food term.

My two cents worth, sorry to burst the bubble.

Il pour vivre mange, ne pas mange vivre !

www.chefsworld.net

[KYHeirloomer]

Originally Posted by Brittany

which leads me to think that the majority of chefs don't have a clue as to what they are doing or talking about.

I'm always reluctant to use the words "majority", "most," etc. without documentation. I don't know what kind of clue the majority of chefs do or don't have.

But keep in mind two things:

First: The title "chef" applies to anybody from the guy flipping pancakes in a chain restaurant, to the top kitchen executive in a 5-star restaurant. So the level of training, skill, knowledge and creativity varies greatly.

Two: Given that, and considering that chefs all stea... eh, borrow, from each other (how do you think food trends get going?), it's understandable that widespread misuse takes place.

Let's posit this scenario: A mid-level line chef picks up the misuse of a particular term. To use one of yours, let's say carpaccio. He watches Iron Chef and hears the term applied to, oh, a vegetable. Then he gets the opportunity to open his own place, or is hired as a senior chef in a different restaurant. He wants to impress. So he develops his own vegetable-based "carpaccio." He thinks anything thinly sliced and laid out on a platter is a carpaccio. And so, too, will anyone he trains from that point on. And the ripple effect takes over.

Who is to blame? Nobody you can point a finger at. It's part of the generalized dumbing down of culinary skills throughout North America. I recently went through 25 years worth of cooking magazines all at once. Seven or eight titles that I'd been collecting through the years. When you do that certain things glare out at you. One is the accelerating misuse of terms and techniques.

Another is the simplistic way many recipes are presented---with the recognition that today's audience is coming back to cooking, rather than growing up with it. But, at what point does "In a small pan, over high heat, saute the onions in a little oil" stop being necessary and become insulting? And when does ".....saute in a little stock" become acceptible usage?

Another is that few printed recipes are proofread---either that or they're not kitchen tested. Maybe both. But the fact remains that an incredibly high percentage of them contain errors in either the ingredients list, the directions, or both. Many of them misuse terms and techniques. Then other magazines pick them up (so much for the copyright laws), complete with errors, and perpetrate the crime.

The question is, how many people coming into the industry as chefs and caterers learned their basic skills from those magazines? Obviously we can't answer that question. But it certainly has contributed to the problem.

[zimmermann]

I agree with most of your comments but professional people involved in this service area (gastronomy and cooking) must try to keep some main classical terminology (related mainly with techniques) in order to maintain a common and clear language. The limits between applying some terms in "wrong" ways can be not a problem in some marketing strategies, except if you are being unfair or dishonest with you customer - even if you, as a poor (trainned) professional are not aware of what really you are doing.

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

I don't think this is a particularly new problem. And it mostly stems from two groups: people in my end of the business, who don't understand the terms they are using; and poorly trained chefs who think food writers know what they're talking about. Then, like topsy, it just grows.

What happens, far too often, is that they take the technique or approach used in a specific dish, and apply the name to anything using that technique.

I was, for instance, in a chain restaurant about a year ago that has a whole covey of Eggs Benedict variations---when the fact is, Eggs Benedict refers to a very specific assemblage of ingredients. Anything else may use the same approach, but it's a different dish.

Then there's the problem of trying to apply a familiar name to a different technique. My personal teeth-gnasher is when they say, "saute in wine (or juice, or water)." Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing! To saute means to cook quickly in a little oil. Cooking in a little water may or may not be healthier; but it is not sauteing. Similarly, any sauce made by reducing something and adding butter to it has now become a beurre blanque (one of these days I will learn how to spell that). And to get real trendy, anything with either gin or vodka is now a martini. Yeah, right!

Part of the problem, too, is that there's a poorly educated consumer who has heard these terms, seen them misused on the Food Network and in magazines, and thinks he knows what they mean. And when he goes to a restaurant, he expects to see them on the menu. If he sees a menu item listing "carpaccio of poached celeraic with bernaise sauce," he doesn't think, "hey, there's no such thing." He thinks, "hey, didn't Bobby Flay just make something similar." And happily orders it.

So, I don't think, in general, that most chefs are using these terms to intentionally mislead. I think they're dealing with the unfortunately reality of meeting their customers' expectations.

[blueschef]

One of my little sayings is "whats the difference between a sauce and a gravy?"

The price!

[Greg]

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

First: The title "chef" applies to anybody from the guy flipping pancakes in a chain restaurant, to the top kitchen executive in a 5-star restaurant. So the level of training, skill, knowledge and creativity varies greatly.

I believe this statement falls under this topic. The word "chef" does not apply to just anybody. In terms of kitchen usage, it is a shortening of chef de cuisine. In the U.S., it should only apply to someone in a management or supervisory role, preferably with menu control (without menu control, my opinion is that you are a kitchen manager, not a chef, per se). Everybody else is a cook.

As far as misusing terminology goes, food and language are both things that are in a constant change of evolution. I don't view this as a bad thing, as long as the knowledge of the correct usage is kept alive. The misuse of the title "chef" is intolerable, however. At least when confit is not used correctly, there is a relation in the technique used. The translation of chef is "chief" and I fail to see what exactly a cook flipping pancakes is chief of, other than the pancakes. Maybe not even those if they're not particularly good at it.

[kuan]

We used to have Scampi a la something or other in the restaurant. People would always ask, is that shrimp scampi? NO PEOPLE! Scampi IS shrimp!

The servers were no better.

[Erik]

Originally Posted by Greg

The misuse of the title "chef" is intolerable, however....The translation of chef is "chief" and I fail to see what exactly a cook flipping pancakes is chief of, other than the pancakes. Maybe not even those if they're not particularly good at it.

One of my first jobs out of culinary school, a grocery store hired me to restart their scratch baking program. The bakery/deli manager wanted to refer to me as 'the pastry chef', but I flat refused!
They didn't quite get why. It made me a little sad.

[Psycho Chef]

Here's the one that really gets under my skin...Chef's (or pancake flippers) calling salmon roe caviar. Caviar is sturgeon roe....that's it. Salmon eggs are not caviar and I hate to see this term misused. Just an obvious ploy to feign luxury. Certain terminology is used do define quality or exclusivity, and to dining chefs and an increasingly discerning public, bastardization of these words will undoubtedly cause a dumbing down effect. Like when a menu description says "truffles" or "truffle essence" when it's just a spritz of some crappy white truffle oil, kept in a warm bright place in the kitchen, in all of it's half rancid glory. If the menu says truffles i expect them. Say "truffle oil" and all the luxury and $10 extra your charging goes out the window.

[Mikeb]

Originally Posted by Brittany

****ing waiters using the term, mise en place: There goes my nice language.

How about this: no one should be allowed to use terms in a language they can't speak... This definitely applies to you here.

Mise en place literally means "to put into place". So a server setting cutlery on tables IS doing his mise en place....

fricasse: Anytime vegtables are served with a little bit of sauce,

One definition of fricassée: "Mélange particulièrement confus de choses diverses". Which means a "confused mixture of diverse things".

There are a few other definitions of the word in French, culinary and other.

[KYHeirloomer]

Originally Posted by Greg

As far as misusing terminology goes, food and language are both things that are in a constant change of evolution.

Greg, I'm fully aware that language is a living, evolving thing. Words are, after all, my business.

But, when words are continually misused, or are, for whatever reason, misapplied, then pretty soon we're not communicating at all.

And speaking of evoluting words; putting aside questions of respect and ego, in American usage "chef" and "cook" are (or can be) synonyms. Thus:

"chef (shef)n. A cook; especially, the chief cook of a large kitchen staff."

So, no matter how much your ego rebels at the thought, the guy running the kitchen at Waffle House is just as much a chef as the top kitchen executive at a 5 star restaurant in New York or Paris.

>Mise en place literally means "to put into place". So a server setting cutlery on tables IS doing his mise en place....<

Mike, you also have to consider industry usage of terms, rather than just literal translations. The fact is, mise en place, according to industry standards, is a term belonging to the kitchen.

Again, it's a matter of communications. If we want to understand each other we have to talk a common language.

"Which means a "confused mixture of diverse things"."

Uh, huh. Like a salad? Or a compote? Or even a stew? Guess that to be correct next time I'm in a French restaurant, I better ask for a garden vegetable friccasee?