Curry Recipes Online
Curry Chat => Lets Talk Curry => Topic started by: Peripatetic Phil on March 19, 2013, 02:21 PM
-
In another thread, Spicyokooko wrote :
What does it matter what a bloody Bhuna looks like as long as it taste like one? This is a problem a lot of people have on here, they're far too hung up on what things look like rather than what it actually tastes like. It's substance, not superficiality.
Of /course/ it matters what a bhuna looks like : we eat first with our eyes, then with our nose, and only finally with our taste buds. If it doesn't look right, it won't taste right, no matter how skillfully prepared. I have eaten green tandoori chicken, and it tasted abominable : no matter how much I said to myself "the colour doesn't matter", it /did/ matter, and that is a basic fact of cuisine and the culinary art that we just have to accept.
** Phil.
-
What did your Green Tandoori taste of exactly.
Just curious as you seem to eat and enjoy, just about anything in your experiments. :D
-
You knew this would provoke a response from me Phil, so as it's now removed from the topic it was posted too..... :P
Presentation of food is very important to me just as the taste and smell is too. That doesn't mean food has to be presented in a Michelin Star kind of way but if it doesn't look very palatable your unlikely to truly enjoy eating it. I am perhaps fussier than some but that is my prerogative to be so.
But to answer the point raised by Spicey, for me the argument is not so much does it matter what a bhuna looks like in the context of the thread it originated, rather that, is the bhuna still a bhuna when it's swimming in sauce? Because that is what I feel people were discussing.
The Indian Garden offers Karahi Chicken that is cooked and served in the Karahi. The dish consists of quartered half onions, same again in red and green peppers and tomatoes, fried bhuna style in a very lightly reduced and minimal sauce. When I speak to Bangladeshi/Indian people about this, they often agree that this is how a good karahi should be. Yet most restaurants seem to cook chopped onions and peppers in a frying pan with loads of base and transfer to karahi before serving. The two are completely different dishes and I would argue the latter is not a karahi just because it is simply served in the metal vessel. I would even go as far to say that modern karahi and bhuna dishes look the same!
-
What did your Green Tandoori taste of exactly. Just curious as you seem to eat and enjoy, just about anything in your experiments. :D
It is very hard to say (I think that is at the heart of my argument); I could tell it was chicken (texture, both visible and differentiable in the mouth), and I could tell it was mildly spiced; beyond that, I was lost -- my eyes telling me one thing, my taste buds another. I think we must all have experienced the sensation of expecting one taste but experiencing another; the end result is disgusting, no matter how much we might have enjoyed it had we known in advance what flavour to expect.
** Phil.
-
But to answer the point raised by Spicey, for me the argument is not so much does it matter what a bhuna looks like in the context of the thread it originated, rather that, is the bhuna still a bhuna when it's swimming in sauce?
In a word, "no", but only because I am old enough to remember what a bhuna looked like (and tasted like); I imagine the average 30-something would answer "of course", because that is all they have ever known. Sadly.
The Indian Garden offers Karahi Chicken that is cooked and served in the Karahi. The dish consists of quartered half onions, same again in red and green peppers and tomatoes, fried bhuna style in a very lightly reduced and minimal sauce. When I speak to Bangladeshi/Indian people about this, they often agree that this is how a good karahi should be.
And I would agree with them.
Yet most restaurants seem to cook chopped onions and peppers in a frying pan with loads of base and transfer to karahi before serving. The two are completely different dishes and I would argue the latter is not a karahi just because it is simply served in the metal vessel.
I completely agree,
I would even go as far to say that modern karahi and bhuna dishes look the same!
Maybe, I no longer order either. To do so is just (sadly) to yet again risk major disappointment. Which is why I basically stick to Chicken Madras (occasionally Vindaloo), Lamb Dhansak & Lamb Biryani. At least they are usually of an acceptable quality, and not too different to my expectations.
** Phil.
-
Of /course/ it matters what a bhuna looks like : we eat first with our eyes, then with our nose, and only finally with our taste buds. If it doesn't look right, it won't taste right, no matter how skillfully prepared.
Not in my opinion.
It's about taste, taste, taste and taste again. Looks have nothing whatsoever to do with taste and I'll prove my point to you in what may be (for you) a painful way, but no offence is intended in anyway.
Take a look at your chicken liver dish here: http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,11717.msg91816.html#msg91816 (http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,11717.msg91816.html#msg91816)
I can tell you what I think that looks like with a bit of coriander sprinkled on top, but you might think me somewhat rude in saying so.
However, given your recipe and how you've cooked it, what I think it looks like has nothing to do with my inclination to want to taste it.
On the other hand, given the popularity of the generally radioactive looking bright red dishes that seem to dominate this site, which I personally find very unattractive, partially because I know that colour has been achieved by lots of tomato puree, Kashmiri chilli's/paprika and even red food dye, I have no inclination to want to taste them at all.
I have eaten green tandoori chicken, and it tasted abominable : no matter how much I said to myself "the colour doesn't matter", it /did/ matter, and that is a basic fact of cuisine and the culinary art that we just have to accept.
And in my opinion Tandoori Murgh Haryali, chicken marinated in spinach and spices has been and continues to be one of the very nicest tandoori dishes I've so far tasted and provides a very nice alternative to the traditional tandoori and chicken tikka dishes at everywhere produces these days.
As is so often the way on here, our opinions on this subject are almost diametrically opposed.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
-
Hi Malc
You may be missing the point about the Karahi as used in BIR.
The standard cast Karahi serving dish, (single Portion) which comes with a wooden stand/base.
This is too small to cook anything in. Instead it is put on the stove burner and given the
high heat treatment, until it is mad hot, similar to a sizzler tray.
Once the food is cooked in a pan and transferred to the Karahi it sizzles and smokes and gives
that extra (burnt smokey flavour) to the final dish.
I have seen Baltis dishes cooked in there own pot, but their twice the size and
as Balti died a death, I just never see a Chef do it anymore.
I think CH bought a Karahi recently, but not sure if he could get the dish as hot using electrikery. :D
cheers Chewy
-
Not in my opinion. It's about taste, taste, taste and taste again. Looks have nothing whatsoever to do with taste and I'll prove my point to you in what may be (for you) a painful way, but no offence is intended in anyway. Take a look at your chicken liver dish ... I can tell you what I think that looks like with a bit of coriander sprinkled on top, but you might think me somewhat rude in saying so.
I completely agree : not the most appetising looking dish in the world; it looked better in the wok, when the juices were more in evidence and the oil less so. Nonetheless, it looked like spiced chicken livers with added peppers, and tasted like spiced chicken livers with added peppers, and therefore my expectations were fully met when I put a portion in my mouth. Had I dyed it green, or blue, my expectations would have been blown to b*****y and of what it would have tasted I would hate to imagine.
As is so often the way on here, our opinions on this subject are almost diametrically opposed. I couldn't disagree with you more.
That is absolutely fine : /polite/ disagreement lies at the very centre of informed debate. If we all agreed on everything, the forum would have no raison d'
-
Once the food is cooked in a pan and transferred to the Karahi it sizzles and smokes and gives
that extra (burnt smokey flavour) to the final dish.
Thanks Mike
I will have to double check with them again, it's been a while since i've been but I am sure they said they cooked in it. ot as big as a balti dish but bigger than a standard serving dish. I can't argue with your reasoning though and will report back when I find out for sure.
I have to say though, either way, the finished dish is still very different to modern expectations. Happy to report that the Shanaz still cook and serve in Balti dishes though.
Just Googled the Haryali and have to say, it looks very off putting. I'm sure it's not of course, it'll just take a few beers to get the head round it. ;)
-
Just Googled the Haryali and have to say, it looks very off putting. I'm sure it's not of course, it'll just take a few beers to get the head round it. ;)
Well I think that encapsulates in a nutshell what I'm trying to say.
Sometimes we have to suspend belief in what our eyes are telling us and let our taste buds be the final arbiter of what tastes good and what doesn't. But doing it the other way round isn't going to work - making something look good, isn't necessarily going to make it taste good.
This is one of the reasons why, when doing taste tests, to get a full, fair and impartial tasting result, it has to be done blindfolded, so you're not influenced by looks.
It is again, another interesting subject.
-
Well I think that encapsulates in a nutshell what I'm trying to say.
I do understand what your getting at but I can't agree wholeheartedly with regard to the Haryali, primarily as I have never seen the dish before. So I could argue that looks are important. I would also point out that for centuries, curries have been coloured, which is presumably to make them look more appealing.
But as I said before and correct if me If I am wrong, the topic and those prior to it were really about what a bhuna should be; a dryish dish fried in a hot pan or a fried dish in sauce.
I guess one man's meat is another man's poison, as long as we enjoy what we eat it's all that really matters.
-
I do understand what your getting at but I can't agree wholeheartedly with regard to the Haryali, primarily as I have never seen the dish before.
And as I said, sometimes you have to take a leap of faith from what your eyes tell you to what your taste buds say and that for me must be the final arbiter of what is good and bad tasting. What it tastes like.
I would also point out that for centuries, curries have been coloured, which is presumably to make them look more appealing.
No they haven't, at least not artificially coloured, that's a modern invention.
Interestingly enough I've been reading up on traditional Indian food recently and all traditional Indian food takes on the colour and appearance of the ingredients used within the dish, none of which I might add are artificial colourings.
Pilau rice is coloured yellow from saffron and/or turmeric - natural ingredients that add flavour. It's only modern BIR's that have taken to making multi-coloured rice through artificial food dyes that add nothing whatsoever to the taste. Rogan josh is traditionally reddish from the sheer number of tomatoes used in the dish, traditional vindaloo from the high number of red chilli's used in it, that's why it was/is a hot dish, modern BIR's just plonk in another couple of tsps of chilli and more tomato puree to what is basically a madras. A madras and a vindaloo are two quite different tasting dishes in traditional Indian cuisine, particualarly as a Vindaloo is a traditional dish and Madras is a modern BIR construct.
Tandoori chicken is red through the use of food dye - it was never red in traditional Indian cuisine, nor is it red in any traditional Indian home cooking either. Red food dye doesn't make tandoori chicken taste any different to one without it. Does redder tandoori chicken taste better than more orange tandoori chicken and does that taste better than one with no food colouring at all?
But as I said before and correct if me If I am wrong, the topic and those prior to it were really about what a bhuna should be; a dryish dish fried in a hot pan or a fried dish in sauce.
The subject came up because I cited CA getting annoyed at someone complaining that his Bhuna didn't look like a Bhuna and when asked to provide an example of what a Bhuna looked like, a dish with chicken swimming in sauce was given.
That led me to make the point that a Bhuna is a Bhuna when it tastes like a Bhuna, not when it looks like one. Both Sindhi meat/lamb and Bhuna Gohst use the same Bhuna cooking technique to produce an almost dry dish with little sauce. Which one's a Bhuna and which one isn't?
-
I would also point out that for centuries, curries have been coloured, which is presumably to make them look more appealing.
No they haven't, at least not artificially coloured, that's a modern invention.
Interestingly enough I've been reading up on traditional Indian food recently and all traditional Indian food takes on the colour and appearance of the ingredients used within the dish, none of which I might add are artificial colourings.
But Axe didn't say "artificially coloured", he said "coloured". A traditional Indian chef would use Kashmiri chillies in order to enhance the red colour of a dish; this is "colouring" but not "artificial colouring".
** Phil.
-
Red food dye doesn't make tandoori chicken taste any different to one without it. Does redder tandoori chicken taste better than more orange tandoori chicken and does that taste better than one with no food colouring at all?
Yes, it does, at least to we Britons. Because that is the colour to which the majority of BIR customers are accustomed, and therefore the colour that they expect. If their expectations are not met, they will judge the flavour inferior, whether or not it actually is. You cannot separate the psychology of food from the physical manifestation of its taste.
** Phil.
-
A traditional Indian chef would use Kashmiri chillies in order to enhance the red colour of a dish; this is "colouring" but not "artificial colouring".
Certainly traditional dishes like Rogan Josh get their red colouring from as I've already said, tomatoes, but also the use of Kashmiri chilli's. Given that Rogan Josh is a dish that originates from the Kashmir region, it also necessarily follows they would use chilli's from that region within it. Traditional Indian food is very much regional ingredient based.
I'd certainly be interested in another example of where Kashmiri chilli's are used to colour a dish from the South of India, such as Goa or Kerala, given that Kashmir is in the North of the country.
But this still shouldn't detract from the point I'm making. Which is, artificial colourants as used in modern BIR's add nothing to the flavour and taste of the food they're added to, they are used for appearance only.
As home cooks, it is simply unnecessary for us to blindly follow this practice when at the end of the day we should be primarily interested in what something tastes like, not what it looks like. Unless of course you want to dazzle your dinners guests with a sumptious array of brightly coloured Indian food.
-
But this still shouldn't detract from the point I'm making. Which is, artificial colourants as used in modern BIR's add nothing to the flavour and taste of the food they're added to, they are used for appearance only.
And this is where we disagree. Artificial colourants, if used to ensure that a dish meets a customer's expectations, /will/ enhance the flavour of the dish : I add green, red and yellow food colourings to my pulao rice (separately, well separated, and in small quantities only) so that the rice meets my expectations as to what a "good" pulao rice will look like. If I can achieve the right balance of colours, the rice /will/ taste better as a result (so long as my spicing is also up to par). As I wrote above, you simply cannot ignore the psychology of food : it is an intrinsic part of the culinary experience.
** Phil.
-
Hey, spiceyokooko!
Pilau rice is coloured yellow from saffron and/or turmeric - natural ingredients that add flavour. It's only modern BIR's that have taken to making multi-coloured rice through artificial food dyes that add nothing whatsoever to the taste. Rogan josh is traditionally reddish from the sheer number of tomatoes used in the dish,
I'm not sure about that. The muslims of Kashmir did and do use the cockscomb plant, and they used and/or still use "Ratan Jot" (Alkanna tinctoria).
Tandoori chicken is red through the use of food dye - it was never red in traditional Indian cuisine, nor is it red in any traditional Indian home cooking either.
I believe that indian street vendors began to colour their tandoori chicken to distance themselves from the products of their competition, and let people believe, it's in some way superior. But I'm with you, personally I'm not a fan of artificial colouring. In fact, I find that fake red look highly unappetising, and use only kashmiri mirch, deggi mirch, paprika and tomato paste, to give a few dishes more (natural) colour. Just a matter of taste.
Greetings!
-
Everyone seems to have a genuine point. You look with your eyes first and that definitely sends the very first impression followed by the aroma and taste. These impressions seem to be the determining factor of all curry's that i have experienced over years and years. It's what i, and indeed i would suggest the majority of members, have been 'brought up on'. You don't expect a Bhuna to be 'green' or any other colour. Are we prejudiced after so many years of experiencing the 'standard' or 'norm'? Because sometimes though this can be misplaced and erroneous. If you were born blind you wouldn't know the colour and would rely on your other senses to determine whether the taste, texture etc was to your liking. Thus the question is: when is a Bhuna, a Bhuna :-\
just a thought to consider, perhaps.
-
I'm not sure about that. The muslims of Kashmir did and do use the cockscomb plant, and they used and/or still use "Ratan Jot" (Alkanna tinctoria).
Interesting.
Do you have any more information on why they used these? Was it for religious reasons? I was reading yesterday that Indian Muslims exempted certain vegetables from their fast for some reason, something to do with the health properties or religious.
I believe that indian street vendors began to colour their tandoori chicken to distance themselves from the products of their competition, and let people believe, it's in some way superior.
I agree. I think Tandoori chicken was originally coloured with Kashmiri Chillis to give it that reddish colour which is now emulated with artificial food dye in todays BIRs! :o
-
Thus the question is: when is a Bhuna, a Bhuna
When it tastes like one ;)
But you mention an interesting point - aroma and taste. Aroma is very closely linked to taste and smell is the most sensitive of the senses.
It's interesting.
If you were blindfolded for example and were given say half a dozen Indian BIR dishes to smell, which one would you choose to eat? In the same way, if your blindfold was taken off, would you then change your mind based on what the dishes looked like?
I'm not convinced that appearance guides our choice in terms of what something should taste like. It's a con perpetuated upon us by wily restauranteurs to mislead us into thinking dishes are going to taste better than they actually are.
That's not to say a dish's appearance isn't important, it is, but when we sit down in a BIR restaurant to select from the menu, we make choices on dish descriptions, and past taste experience - not on what they look like.
-
I'm not convinced that appearance guides our choice in terms of what something should taste like. It's a con perpetuated upon us by wily restauranteurs to mislead us into thinking dishes are going to taste better than they actually are.
It's not a con, it's a valid application of psychology. If it looks as we want it to, it is more likely to taste as we want it to.
That's not to say a dish's appearance isn't important, it is, but when we sit down in a BIR restaurant to select from the menu, we make choices on dish descriptions, and past taste experience - not on what they look like.
In a conventional BIR, agreed, because the menu is primarily prose. In a buffet-style BIR such as the Sunday buffet in Coxheath or every day in So Asia (Ealing) we judge by the appearance. In an restaurant such as Thai-An, where customers are not expected to be overly familiar with the cuisine, by both (whence the photographs in the menu (http://thai-an.co.uk/restaurant/menu/2012/TA-Menu-A3-CMYK.pdf) : sadly there was space for only a few). In practice, the appearance will be a better clue to the quality of the dish than any amount of "sun-kissed under tropical skies, drizzled with a unique jus fermented from the virgin milk of a hand-reared camel" and all that b******s. Past taste experience, yes : that is why we go back to the good places and eschew the bad ones, and why we rapidly abandon the good ones when they turn bad.
** Phil.
-
If it looks as we want it to, it is more likely to taste as we want it to.
I can't say I agree with that and in my opinion it's exactly the reason a lot of people on this site have problems with the dishes they make. They make something look right, but then find it doesn't taste right, because they haven't cooked it right.
Just because something looks right, doesn't mean it will taste right. Just because I can make something look like I want it to in no way means it will taste like I want it to.
As I've said previously, for me, taste is king. I don't care what it looks like, if it tastes good to me, that's what I'll eat.
Usually, if it tastes good, it will also look good, because it's been cooked properly. No amount of artificial colourant twiddling will change that.
-
Just because something looks right, doesn't mean it will taste right.
I agree, and I think that we are reaching convergence : my point is solely that if it looks right, it is /more likely/ to taste right than if it looks completely wrong (e.g., green tandoori chicken). No amount of fiddling with the appearance can make something taste right if it was wrong in the first place, but given two identically prepared dishes, one of which looks the part and one of which looks just plain wrong, the former is more likely to taste better to the customer.
** Phil.
-
I'm not sure about that. The muslims of Kashmir did and do use the cockscomb plant, and they used and/or still use "Ratan Jot" (Alkanna tinctoria).
Interesting.
Do you have any more information on why they used these? Was it for religious reasons? I was reading yesterday that Indian Muslims exempted certain vegetables from their fast for some reason, something to do with the health properties or religious.
Not sure again, but I think they use it mainly because it's a "proper" vegetable leaf, something other cultures do consume regularly, too. (cockscomb) The Alkanna just gives colour, or so it seems. But I read somewhere that the "Ratan Jot" (the hindi name) grows in the kashmir area, and that would be enough, to go right into some kashmiri dish ;P But indians do love colour, though. They add turmeric to almost any dish, to enhance the colour, but as far as I'm concerned, not always exclusively. Turmeric is the holiest spice over there, pretty healthy and enhances the flavour. If you add too much of any spice at some point, you could also add a little pinch of turmeric extra, and it could possibly save your day. And as far as I remember, the coloured pilau goes back originally to the persian folks. The indians adopted their methods, because they liked the look and taste.
I believe you are talking about the kashmiri pandits. They don't use garlic and onions, but fennel seeds, hing, ginger and curd/yoghurt. But they aren't muslims, but a hindu caste. Jains avoid garlic and onions (and many other things), too. The Hare Krishna cuisine also doesn't use garlic and onions. But kashmiri muslims use it quite extensively (:
Greetings!
edit: Just realize that "Rogan Josh" is, originally, a persian dish, too. So it would make sense, that traditional kashmiri plants, that also add a red colour, weren't used originally, and the colour could really just be the product of tomatoes. There are some theories, that the name itself comes from the red colour of the dish, and it could be, that the persians already used something to colour it. We know they did it with their rice, though. But I'd love to know what they used exactly for the green and red rice grains back then. Especially the green ones.
-
I add green, red and yellow food colourings to my pulao rice (separately, well separated, and in small quantities only) so that the rice meets my expectations as to what a "good" pulao rice will look like. If I can achieve the right balance of colours, the rice /will/ taste better as a result (so long as my spicing is also up to par).
::)
I think you're in the minority there Phil. ;)
As i was reading this it reminded me of a photo CA posted of some rice. I'd forgotten that it was you alone who didn't like the look of his rice. ;)
http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,8422.msg74367.html#msg74367 (http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,8422.msg74367.html#msg74367)
When i've viewed houses for sale in the past or if i'm watching a property prog on tv, I have the sense to see past all the staging and i see the rooms themselves. All the fancy accessories dont fool me.
The same goes for food, its not about the decoration but ultimately the taste.
-
I think you're in the minority there Phil. ;)
As i was reading this it reminded me of a photo CA posted of some rice. I'd forgotten that it was you alone who didn't like the look of his rice. ;)
To be slightly more accurate, it was only I who said so in public. I don't think either of us have the faintest idea how the vast majority of the members of the forum viewed it. But it is also worth recording CA's own response to my critique :
But for me, a pulao rice needs to have more colour differentiation between the grains -- the white grains (the majority) should be a clear, clean, white, whilst the coloured grains should be few in number and saturated [1]. In your rice, the grains seems to be a sort of uniform creamy yellow, which I don't personally find appealing or appetising. But that's just me : I am sure that many will be more than happy to enthuse about its presentation.
Interesting point, Phil, and not one that I would necessarily disagree with.
Your are totally correct that the grains in mine are "sort of uniform creamy yellow" since I deliberately made them so. The reason for this is that the rice was left over from a large dish of Chicken Biriani I cooked for a large group of people, which included none curry eating Aussies! And, from experience, I know that Aussies (and even many British expats!) tend to shy away from highly coloured rice (even though, like you, I personally prefer it that way).
It might be interesting to try a poll, and see which style of rice presentation CR0 members /do/ prefer (or at least, those interested in taking part in the debate) :
Exhibit A :
(http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/imagehost/pics/a8b0d3de6307374063d31a6517eed0d2.JPG)
Exhibit B :
(http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/imagehost/pics/29d0a72a01cea44615047f3c1d48ec28.JPG)
** Phil.
-
I would go for the first one because to me, that looks like it has some flavour running through it rather than coloured grains of plain rice ;)
Like when you're boiling rice and using the curry coated spoon to stir it. Also, its the same colour as some of the best rice i've ever tasted which is sold by a couple from Wolves who run the curry van on market day in Machynlleth.
-
...sometimes you have to take a leap of faith from what your eyes tell you...
I agree.
No they haven't, at least not artificially coloured, that's a modern invention.
Not artificially, through naturally available plants etc. I have recently researched colourings though haven't saved any data (didn't seem relevant at the time) I do have this from a site I found:
The Kashmiri muslims use lots of onion, garlic and also the dried flower of the cockscomb plant commonly known as Maval in Kashmir. Maval provides the dish its distinct bright red color. Maval surprisingly is in itself a substitute for Ratan Jot (Alkanet Root) which was the preferred ingredient to impart color not only to Roganjosh but also Tandoori chicken during the Moghul period.
-
I would go for the first one because to me, that looks like it has some flavour running through it rather than coloured grains of plain rice ;)
Me too, for similar reasons.
-
Not artificially, through naturally available plants etc. I have recently researched colourings though haven't saved any data (didn't seem relevant at the time) I do have this from a site I found
Fair enough, I stand corrected then on the widespread use of natural colourants used in traditional Indian cookery. And I appreciate your research, I was aware of the use of alkanet root interestingly :)
I still don't agree that we as home cooks should copy the practices of modern BIR's in using artificial colourings though.
-
I would go for the first one Phil as out of two it looks less oily but I am not a big fan of colourings for colourings sake especially green.
-
I still don't agree that we as home cooks should copy the practices of modern BIR's in using artificial colourings though.
Neither do I, I don't use colouring as a rule of thumb. Of course, it does exist is some products, like my Tandoori Masala but I can not take it out and it's not practical for me to make my own. :-\
-
Not a fair comparison.
If you are hungry, you are naturally attracted to exhibit A, because it has a rich and tasty looking
curry on it, with plenty of Chicken Fillet. The fried rice is secondary, but looks good and non greasy with
the right amount of peas and maybe a bit egg and onion.
The camera has caught the glint of too much oil on exhibit B which makes it less appealing.
So your the Winner Phil ;)
-
If you are hungry, you are naturally attracted to exhibit A, because it has a rich and tasty looking
curry on it, with plenty of Chicken Fillet. The fried rice is secondary, but looks good and non greasy with
the right amount of peas and maybe a bit egg and onion.
You are only supposed to be looking at the rice! ::)
I wonder which one you'd choose if you wern't hungry.
-
...like my Tandoori Masala but I can not take it out and it's not practical for me to make my own.
I'm pretty sure you could come up with a practical home made one if you were so inclined! I still have a bag of amchoor powder I've been meaning to use up in a tandoori masala ;)
Commercial Tandoori Masala is primarily Paprika, Paprika, Paprika, Paprika, Salt, Sugar and a little bit of the usual suspects, I'm pretty sure a home made one would taste far better.
-
So your the Winner Phil ;)
Neither are mine : one is CA's, and I regret I forget who prepared the other; I simply linked to it because it has achieved the same effect as I set out to achieve with mine. This is one of mine :
(http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/imagehost/pics/9299afde77c1dceb0c4346d70a93d89a.JPG)
** Phil.
-
If you were blindfolded for example and were given say half a dozen Indian BIR dishes to smell, which one would you choose to eat? In the same way, if your blindfold was taken off, would you then change your mind based on what the dishes looked like?
I'm not convinced that appearance guides our choice in terms of what something should taste like. It's a con perpetuated upon us by wily restauranteurs to mislead us into thinking dishes are going to taste better than they actually are.
we make choices on dish descriptions, and past taste experience - not on what they look like.
Sorry to pick up on this late, but I missed a fair part of the debate.
I believe, blindfold removed, I could possibly choose another dish. This would be based on my attention to how much oil is in the dish, how the sauce appears generally, what is in the curry, etc. Smell is but one part of the whole.
The real problem that causes debate here, is that we are discerning 'curry experts' and understand that colourings are not important or essential (sorry Phil I know you disagree) but the general curry eating nation are not so. I have had several conversations with restaurateurs that have indicated that removing the colouring has had an adverse effect on their custom, which supports Phil theory. But that doesn't mean we need to do this at home.
Past experiences also includes the visual memory of that experience so it does play a part, however much you agree to.
As for the Tandoori Masala, I may well look into it. I know the Rajah masala I have is fairly busy on the ingredient list, but I have wanted to get a spice grinder and this may be a time to do it. I cook alot of tikka and tandoori dishes at home, they are generally my goto fix. :)
-
Sorry to pick up on this late, but I missed a fair part of the debate.
All good comments which I happily agree with.
Of course visual appearance is important, but it's not the over-riding factor for me. It's taste, every time, and smell and aroma is very closely linked to taste, which is one of the reasons when you've been cooking and frying spices, particularly chilli your sense of smell can be over-whelmed by it, which also affects your taste.
I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people when out in a group, who always wants to steal a spoonful of your curry just to taste :) I'm not that bothered what it looks like, I just want to taste it. However, if it's got aubergines in it like your dinner tonight, you're pretty safe, because I can't stand them!
It's well worth trying out mixing your own Tandoori Masala, you might be quite surprised at how much better it is over the commercial version. Tikka and Tandoori isn't really one of my things but when I have made them they've come out pretty well with home made masalas and marinating ingredients.
-
I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people
Now there's something we can all agree on! ;D
-
To me both rice pics are appealing, however the first doesn't look like a Pilau rice to me. It's a "spiced rice" by the looks of it. A Pilau rice should look like exhibit B in my book. I guess it depends on what you name your rice ;)
-
The discussion reminds me of a curry-house I visited, that used artificial colourings in almost anything. The lassi, the onion bhajis and the tandoori dishes used all colouring for sure. I even ate some rice kheer once, that was all red by artificial colouring. At that time, I was already into indian cooking, never made that dessert by myself, but knew that is is basically just milk and rice. I was not amused, and it did taste... just meh. Interestingly, my companions didn't believe that there was some fake colouring involved. Maybe that's because we use so much of it in anything today, not just indian restaurant cooking, that some people already forgot how some things really look, and are used to these appearances. On the other hand, there are whole industries that advertise with slogans like "without artificial colouring" and such. To use it that much, like some restaurants seem to do it, is just pure overkill, I think. And it doesn't stop there: The green chili paste I bought, does contain artificial food colouring, too! (some acid yellow, I think) I mean, why?! I simply don't get it. Why not use something, that will give colour, and isn't that unhealthy? And if that isn't possible (or too expensive), at least to avoid all these crazy E-numbers and azo dyes. Will never buy a can of it again, that's for sure.
Greetings!
-
(snip) The green chili paste I bought, does contain artificial food colouring, too! (some acid yellow, I think) I mean, why?! I simply don't get it. Why not use something, that will give colour, and isn't that unhealthy?
STOP ! "Artificial food colouring" does not entail "unhealthy" : they are completely unrelated. There are many natural colourings that, were we to be foolish enough to use them in foods, would almost certainly kill us. And there are many artificial food colourings that are completely benign. Read, please, the late Professor Jack Pridham's "Chemophilia (http://chemophilia.org.uk/)" for a thorough (and scientific) debunking of the myth that "all chemicals are bad".
** Phil.
-
Well, of course they are not. But Tartrazin and most of the azo dyes surely are ,) (was talking about these particular, because they are the most used ones in these pastes and colouring powders, so it seems - sorry about my bad wording). Would prefer some aspirin above the pure Salix bark anytime, so I do also believe, that there are many chemicals and synthetic products, that are quite useful and can be healthy (even healthier than their natural counterpart) (:
Greetings!