Does anyone have a good recipe for a stove top version of creme brulee? I would like to use it as a filling for a wedding cake.

By momoreg on Friday, December 31, 1999 - 06:43 am: Edit

How about pastry cream? It's more suitable for filling cakes. If you want it creamier, just fold in whipped cream.

By Steveklc (Steveklc) on Tuesday, January 11, 2000 - 10:10 am: Edit

Tina--stovetop creme brulees are easy and I use them for wedding cake fillings all the time. They're basically a creme anglaise with a bit of gelatin added. I have two versions--a pistachio and a cinnamon milk chocolate--featured in the "Recipes and Techniques" section of the December Food Arts magazine on page 104. When I want one for a wedding cake tier--I line a cakepan (1" to 2" smaller than the actual cake tier) with plastic wrap. Make sure it is level so the cream sets up evenly and then freeze. It pops out and can be placed in a cake easily.

By Dominique (Dominique) on Tuesday, January 11, 2000 - 03:43 pm: Edit

I've never heard of using a creme brulee as a wedding cake filling before.....
My stove-top recipe is to whip 30 yolks and 9 oz of sugar over a double-boiler. Boil 9 cups of heavy whipping cream and 3 vanilla beans. (Use the cream with like 36% milkfat. I've found that the higher fat cream doesn't work well in this recipe.)... anyway, when the yolks are thick and fluffy, strain and add the cream. I usually let it sit on the double boiler for a few more minutes to thicken back up. I'd add a bit of geletin too, if using it to fill a cake.

By Ramodeo (Ramodeo) on Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Is there a "brulee" happening with the wedding cake fillings, or is it just the custard?

By momoreg on Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Otherwise, how can this be called creme brulee?

By W.DeBord on Thursday, January 13, 2000 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Are you really melting sugar on top of your filling IN a cake?

This sounds like a loose use of the title creme brulee. William Sonoma catalog puts sugar on top of a cheesecake and melts it then calls it a creme brulee cheesecake?

Don't you think that between a baked creme brulee and a stove top version the consistancy (heck, the whole finished product) is completely different? I do! Add gelatin, cornstarch or whatever to thicken it in addition to egg yolks makes it a version of pastry cream.

My knowledge of creme brulee tells me you are talking about a different product, even if the recipe calls it creme brulee.

By momoreg on Thursday, January 13, 2000 - 04:37 pm: Edit

I'll second that. A lot of culinary terms are used so loosely these days, it's hard to know when someone's talking about the real thing.

By pam on Thursday, January 13, 2000 - 10:43 pm: Edit

i agree that this is not creme brulee. it is a custard filling. real creme brulee is a softer creamy type of baked custard that wouldn't be good to put as a cake filling,it's too delicate. plus like the others said where's the brulee?why is it called creme brulee cake filling? creme anglaise w gelatin is definatley not creme brulee.
by making it on the stove i wouldn't think the texture would be right,it would be to fluffy. (that may not be the right description but it's all i can think of)

By T.Napetian on Monday, January 17, 2000 - 01:51 am: Edit

Thank you, Steveklc, you have been most helpful. I will definitely work with your suggestions.

By tj on Tuesday, January 18, 2000 - 09:32 pm: Edit

steveklc ,
creme anglaise with gelatine=cream brulee ????????
and this is what you sell to brides??????????????
now i can see how american "chefs" can sell their customers button mushrooms and call them "white italian tortufo" , :-)
how funny can you get?

By Steveklc (Steveklc) on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 11:03 am: Edit

Sorry to ignite a little knee-jerk controversy with all you traditionalists, but cooking evolves whether we like it or not, and our modern usage, understanding of techniques and terminology change right along with it. I don't begrudge your appreciation of what you consider authentic or the "real thing," though I think it's misguided and a little shortsighted. It all depends on your frame of reference. While many feel that Dieter Schorner "invented" the classic creme brulee while at Le Cirque in New York, I have found several recipes for creme brulee antecedents, including one for a Scottish "burnt cream," in numerous historical cookbooks that pre-date Dieter by over a hundred years, all with varying techniques and textures. Which is "authentic?" That's what makes cooking great--for every Careme there has followed an Escoffier, for every Escoffier, there followed a Pic or Point who, in turn, nurtured the creativity of the nouvelle masters--in fact, there's been a whole series of "nouvelle" culinary revolutions since the Middle Ages that have involved re-examining and re-inventing what has come before--what was once seen as "authentic" and "the real thing" is then turned on it's head and transcended. Not necessarily improved, but changed.
To cite just one example, do you have the same visceral and negative reaction when you see something called a "napoleon" and it does not contain pastry cream, puff and a striated black and white poured fondant glaze? I doubt it, but if so, I feel sorry for you. You're denying yourself an opportunity to be playful and to create something interesting--where do you think we'd be today if the 3 star nouvelle French masters in the 70's adhered to a rigid reverence of what constituted a "napoleon?" Back in the overly-codified, predictable and dull days of Escoffier, that's where.

By Steveklc (Steveklc) on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 11:06 am: Edit

Technology evolves, too. Do you want to ignore that progress for the sake of traditionalism? If I bake my brulee in a silicone Flexipan or Gastroflex mold instead of a porcelain ramekin, or without a water bath in a convection oven(because the heat is much more even in a convection oven vs. a conventional oven, you don't need a water bath to get the same delicate custard)--is it really any less of a brulee?
Ramadeo: To go back to the brulee layer in a cake issue--what I usually do to add a sugary crunch is layer it with thin nougatine sheets or roughly-chopped caramelized nuts. When I use creme brulee as a component of a plated dessert, I always add some type of tuile above it to get that sugary crunch. To return to the "napoleon" reference, an increasingly common a la minute plated dessert in the US is to use creme brulee instead of pastry cream in a napoleon...and to get the sugary crunch, layer it with very thin sheets of caramelized puff instead of regular puff. It's not Dieter's creme brulee, baked in a water bath, in a porcelain ramekin, but so what? It both respects the popular notion of what many presume to be an "authentic" creme brulee and tweaks it a bit.
And for those of you that worry about the seemingly blasphemous concept of gelatin in a brulee custard--only put it in there when you need to for the application, like in a wedding cake tier when there will be alot of weight above it. If you push the proportion of ingredients in your brulee recipe a bit to accomodate the very small amount of gelatin required, it will not be noticeable. Otherwise, you don't need it--the gelatin just makes it a little easier for a la minute plated desserts and especially in banquet plating situations. The touch of gelatin also helps in freezing the brulee.

and lastly, for tj--expand your horizons a little bit before writing snippy things about "American chefs" selling things to their customers. On page 130 of "The Patisserie of Pierre Herme" there's a very good creme brulee with gelatin recipe and technique--and on page 274 in "Au Coeur des Saveurs," Frederic Bau has his "rich creme anglaise--for quick-cooled creme brulee" recipe and technique. These French guys are, arguably, only two of the most pre-eminent pastry chefs in the world, alongside Roland Mesnier, Jacques Torres, Pascal Caffet and Olivier Bajard. Their books are interesting, thoughtful and important. Last I looked, neither Bau nor Herme had gotten their American citizenship.

What counts, ultimately, is whether the dessert is good--not what it's called or how it's made. Those are diversions. I've had too many bad, but authentic, creme brulees, to feel otherwise.

By W.DeBord on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 11:37 am: Edit

An exchange of thoughts is just that. I'm certain no one meant to offend you Steveklc.

I think I might have brought up the topic of weather you can really call that creme brulee. In my head I envision creme brulee leaking out of the middle of a cake because it is not as thick as a pastry cream. So I figured then you would have to thicken it which then seemed to me to lean away from creme brulee toward a pastry cream. Since it's still called brulee I thought then this must be a type of "pastry cream" with carmelized sugar in the middle of a cake. That also is a new thought which I'm not sure appeals to me personally (too much of a suprise texture in cake). I've continued reading here to learn about this new filling idea because I'm not stuck in a traditional mode.

I'm visiting this web site to learn and exchange ideas. I do find this interesting as do others or they wouldn't have presented their thoughts. I hope we can continue this discusion in a freindly non-adversary context.

By momoreg on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Steve,
While I think you did a terrific job at presenting your point, I'd have to disagree. I cannot see the parallel between napoleons and creme brulee. When pastry chefs twist the traditional concept of a napoleon, they typically define how, in the name of the dessert; i.e. a strwberry rhubarb napoleon. So it is automaticaaly clear that the dish is not a traditional one. But creme brulee does imply that there is a brulee involved. If it's not brulee'd, then it's a different kind of creme.
It seems like pastry chefs use the names of familiar favorites to spark the interest of uneducated diners, who order by name, but don't care about authenticity. There's nothing wrong with being a traditionalist. It's called paying homage to the great chefs before us. If you tweak the original, and call it the same name, that's one thing, but if you change an essential element, you're no longer paying homage, you're stretching the truth.

By momoreg on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Steve,
While I think you did a terrific job at presenting your point, I'd have to disagree. I cannot see the parallel between napoleons and creme brulee. When pastry chefs twist the traditional concept of a napoleon, they typically define how, in the name of the dessert; i.e. a strwberry rhubarb napoleon. So it is automaticaaly clear that the dish is not a traditional one. But creme brulee does imply that there is a brulee involved. If it's not brulee'd, then it's a different kind of creme.
It seems like pastry chefs use the names of familiar favorites to spark the interest of uneducated diners, who order by name, but don't care about authenticity. There's nothing wrong with being a traditionalist. It's called paying homage to the great chefs before us. If you tweak the original, and call it the same name, that's one thing, but if you change an essential element, you're no longer paying homage, you're stretching the truth.

By momoreg on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 01:07 pm: Edit

As far as tradition, I agree with what you say, that things are constantly evolving, and obviously changing. We can't avoid or deny it, but to draw a parallel, you can't call Van Gogh an impressionist, even though though the styles were similar. If I didn't know who Van Gogh was, and you told me he was an impressionist, I'd think his stle was like Monet or Renoir. Boy would I be disappointed if I went all the way to the Met to see all those pretty pastels!

By tj on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 02:55 pm: Edit

great point momoreg,
the problem is ,in my mind , people in the usa have a great lack of culinary knowledge and understanding ,it is the job of professionals to change that ,but when you have a business and want to sell , you think of great names to your "creations" ,something catchy, something trendy,
and tag your creation with it. this is dead wrong,
dead wrong, this confuses the public , creats customers with strange ideas about food, and do more harm then good. never sell an apple and call it and orange. never.this is about professionalizm
in the kitchen .i know that calling your wedding cake filling "cream brulee" creats a fals sense of value and uniqness in the mind of your customers.
and this is deception.pure and simple.
plus , making a cream anglaise with gelatin is nothing new or unique.
so starting tomorrow, i am going to start calling
gelo pudding -"creme brulee" and sell it in the name of modernization . how about that?

By tj on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 03:05 pm: Edit

i beg every body`s forgiveness ,for my hot headed
french temper, but with out tradition, with out history ,we have nothing!
we must evolve our profssion all the time to keep customers interested and happy ,but not by naming things in confusing ways ,this contributes nothing.
it is especialy important in europe ,where customers know what the names meen, and the expect to get a specific product that match the name you give it. i find it so easy here, that i can name what ever i make , what ever i want .and this is wrong!!!
sorry , but it is !
this is not "creating" ,"revolutionazing", "inventing" ,"improving", etc.this is sharlatanizm. i see this all the time in the idiotic "food channel", and it makes me angry as a
30 year veteran pastry chef to see all of this shoved down the throats of the american viewers.

By tj on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 03:18 pm: Edit

again i apologize for the way i put things,
this is by no way a personal attack on any one ,
i am just very passionate about my work , i try to pass it along to the next generation of chefs the right way, before i retire .tradition is very important to me for the sole reason of creating a foundation to this profession , which without it ,
it is nothing! especialy for young chefs that look up to the older experienced chefs for guidness and advice.
in france , this profession involves great humbelness , and respect to the classic methods of baking, and sometimes , in my mind , trying to improve somthing creates more problems and confusion, then anything else.for example, i think that pastry cream will never be improved because it is a perfect preperation .why change or "improve" somthing that is perfect? or why give it a different name?

By W.DeBord on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 05:26 pm: Edit

tj I agree with most of what you've written but I think you haven't thought through "trying to improve something creates more problems... why change or improve something that is perfect". Those words when read literally are unreasonable.


I enjoy playfulness with word and thought but tj is correct. We can't sell an apple and call it an orange then get mad that our customers are stupid "they don't even know what an apple is". Confusion adds nothing.

Keeping my thoughts simple...we can not communicate with each other if we can't agree on a common language and assign definition to words.

By Ramodeo (Ramodeo) on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 06:34 pm: Edit

This is obviously one of those debates that sparks strong feelings! When I originally asked if there was any "brulee" involved, I was curious because I thought the idea of a custard filling with a crunchy sugar layer inside a cake would be really interesting, and I wondered how you were achieving that, steveklc. Thanks for the answer! :-)

tj, I understand your passion for the history and tradition of our profession, however, I think many american chefs tend to look to the entire world (as opposed to a western european focus)for their history, tradition and inspiration, and combine them in their own ways - some giving more weight to asian traditions, or south american traditions, etc. It's that melting pot thing. I think most of us here do acknowledge and respect the classic european methods, but we realize they are not the only way to produce great foods.

That said, here in the U.S., to most people, the name creme brulee has become almost a generic term for a custard with crunchy burnt sugar topping. To most people here, a napoleon is a stacked dessert made of crisp pastry and something creamy. We in this forum all know that there is more to the classic definitions than that, but that kind of naming is just not going to be stopped here in the U.S.

I believe we have a responsibility to be as honest as possible with our customers about what they're getting, (preferably using generally accepted terms). Our descriptions should match exactly what the product is even if the one-or-two word name does not. Educate the customer as much as possible, but I honestly don't think most of them want alot of education. They want exactly what they're willing to pay for, and if we want to stay in business, we should be willing to sell it to them. If the exact definition of the name doesn't matter to them....

By DouceFrance on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 08:34 am: Edit

You all have a point here. I am not against evolution, but like tj I think the original recipe should keep it's name and any improvement or change to it should lead to a new name. I am french too and even if I am open to the world and anything that's new in pastry, I still think Europe is the place of birth of this "pastry" and it is paying a tribute to our masters to keep the tradition alive. I was lucky to teach at the ENSP in France along with Pascal Caffet and Olivier Bajard and so many more MOF, these people are the "TOP" and they are indeed very humble and respectful of those who taught them, but they are creative too "in respect of tradition".

By tj on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 03:08 pm: Edit

great conversation guys!
just to refer to a point about america being a melting pot and adopting asian traditions or what ever.
this does not apply to pastry and baking.
the baking profession was invented in western europe.the very first guilds of professional bakers started in western europe.and it is where the first time it was recognized as a profession by any goverment.there for the tradition and history of the professional pastry world is european .not american ,asian ,african ,australian, or any other.
the rest of the planet was eating mud and dust when the first pastry chefs in europe where serving royalty.plus pastry and baking hardly ever
evolved in asia ,where they dont use breads, cheese ,chocolate, cocoa products, etc.

By tj on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 03:16 pm: Edit

and as far as north africa and the middle east ,
all they ever came up with was flat breads ,and sweets based on nuts and filo.never cakes or yeast based pastries.
coming back to the creme brulee` ,i first
learning to make it back in 1965 ,in my second apprentice year with my great teacher Jean Creveux.he is one of the greatest ,and he told us
back then that creme brulee is not french, but came from England! it has been in france for about
50 years.

By Ramodeo (Ramodeo) on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 09:34 pm: Edit

"the rest of the planet was eating mud and dust..." - now there's a humble attitude. I'm sorry, but that is an incredibly narrow minded and egotistical statement.

As I said before, I will always respect the classic european methods and I agree that the pastry and baking profession may have begun there, but even if other parts of the world don't use yeast and chocolate, they DO influence modern pastry and baking. As a baking and pastry professional, I will always be open to all new ideas, where ever they come from, even if they are mis-named according to "tradition"

By momoreg on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Here, here. Thanks Ramodeo for defending the rest of the planet. Somehow, I think that Asia, South America and Africa might be a tad offended by the mud and dust comment...
Those civilizations had a lot to contribute to our profession, even if they're not in the history books.

By Doucefrance (Doucefrance) on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 07:52 am: Edit

I agreed with tj on the tradition in recipes but I totally disagree with this disdain for the rest of the world. This is one of the reasons why I left France, the "We are the best" mentality. It has gotten to the point where the "best" are not on top of the winners list anymore because of that state of mind. In recent competitions I have often seen american teams beat french teams even on "french ground", this says a lot!
Tradition, yes, humility, yes a lot, but stay open to the world and what it has to give you, learn from others and get "rich" from that.
Sorry tj, you make me feel ashamed of being french...
Helene

By tj on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 09:52 am: Edit

political corectness is what this is...
would someone please tell me what did asian, african, american or australians cultures ever contributed to the professional ,technical aspect of baking ? ha?
and dont tell me spices or cocoa ,if the spanish would have not brought cocoa back to europe you will never have chocolate!!!!!!!! just a muddy bitter drink .asian never had the slightest interest in baking what so ever ,and never developed anything even close to be called a pastry or a cake ,same for most of africans ,and native american.hardly anything.
you all know i am right ,but are afraid about what others will say about it.this is not narrow minded
this is cold facts.i chalange anyone to prove me wrong.and i want examples that date befor europeans already introduced baking to the rest of the world.

By tj on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 09:54 am: Edit

by the way,
i realy enjoy this conversation ...
this is fun.
:-)

By tj on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 09:57 am: Edit

i just love being controversial.
:-)

By Ramodeo (Ramodeo) on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 04:43 pm: Edit

I'm glad you enjoy being controversial, tj. We do like a lively conversation here! But I seem to detect a little defensiveness in your statements. You seem to be so intent on convincing us that the european pastry tradition is the first, and therefore the best and only true method and should be followed to the letter of the law that you missed the fact that most of us are not arguing the point that europe was the first, and the pre-eminent influence on the history of our profession.

What I have been trying to express, is that in general, here in the U.S., (especially in creative fields)there is a very pervasive attitude of openness to all influences. There is a high value placed on new ideas, and a relatively low value placed on tradition for traditions sake (except maybe on Thanksgiving :-) ) This is why any kind of custard with crunchy sugary topping can get called creme brulee, and most people are ok with that. As a matter of fact, many people expect to see something new when they order a standard like creme brulee or napoleon. Innovation IS the standard. I agree with Helene - your disdain shown for everything BUT the western european model is very limiting to you and our profession. BTW, those Spaniards who brought the cocoa to Europe probably never would have noticed it if the native peoples had not already figured out how to cultivate, roast and prepare it. From what I've read, the europeans' "disdain" for the muddy, bitter drink almost prevented them from any interest in it. I'm sure the fact that the natives used the beans as currency was what made them take it back with them. If all they saw of it was a pod on a tree in the wild, we most certainly would not have chocolate today!

As for the original discussion, I personally agree with others here who have said that a creme brulee should have two basic elements - custard and burnt sugar crunchy topping. Should the custard have gelatin or not? I agree with steveklc - use it if the application needs it and it doesn't interfere with the expected texture too much. I don't think I'd put it in a cake the way he speaks of and use the name creme brulee, but guess what? There's no law against it. As I said before, if the customer wants it, you're not lying about what it's made of and they want it called creme brulee, give it to them! There's not alot of point in making perfect, traditional, original, authentic pastries and dessert if nobody will pay for them! Oops, sorry, my rather politically incorrect capitalist side is showing! ;-) heeheehee.

By Panini (Panini) on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 08:26 pm: Edit

2 cents from panini,
I call it creme brulee filling so my customers can relate to the taste. They are not that educated.They have had some variation of this dessert. every restaurant has their version.
Anything I can do to help me communicate with my customers I do,it has nothing to do with tradition.
There is nothing left to create.What ever you can come up with has been tried somewhere along the line, if you research long enough.All we have left is variations.

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Tj,
I've found tons of info to challenge you, and I thank you for the dare, because it was educational for me! This message area won't accept links, so if you want to know my resources, I can email them to you. This is going to take up a few posts, so bear with me.

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:40 pm: Edit

The world is littered with examples of quartered breads or breads marked with a solar cross from as early as 300 BC. A spiral appears on the earliest fermented breads baked by the Egyptians (3,000 BC), who were known as the fancy-bread makers. Archaic Greek breads were formed into a crescent moon were made for Artemis, oval shaped breads represented the fertilizing powers of Demeter, breast shaped breads and cakes were made for Aphrodite, from whose breasts came the nourishing milk of the stars and Milky Way. Ritual breads were made for Isis in Egypt, Iananna in Sumeria, and Ishtar in Akkad (multiple deities deities who served essentially the same function), and where communities were too poor to sacrifice their hard-won animals, animal shaped breads were created and offered in their place.

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Separating the wheat from the chaff was no easy task for the ancient Egyptians, who used a tough-hulled type of wheat called emmer to make bread and beer. Modern interpretations of ancient documents portray their bread as coarse and gritty. A new study, however, suggests that the ancient Egyptians were better bakers and brewers than these documents had let on.
An analysis of some very stale bread loaves--up to 4,000 years old--and beer residues clinging to shards of pottery shows that ancient Egyptians actually used fairly sophisticated processing techniques.

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:43 pm: Edit

From the time of the Seljuk sultans more written information about the food has survived. Divanu Lugat-i Turk, a dictionary compiled bt Kasgarli Mahmut in 1072-1073 to teach Turkish to the Arabs, not only gives the names of certain foods, but also describes some dishes. Among those described as old Turkish dishes are tutmac (noodle soup), yufka (flattened bread), katmer (layered pastry), ekmek (bread), yoghurt, ayran, koumiss, corek (ring shaped bun), pekmez (a syrup made of boiled of grape juice and helva made with cornflour. There are also some references to cooking in a pit dug in the earth, to grills and skewers and earthware cooking pots.

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Turkish Cuisine owes its development and survival to this day to the particular culinary expertise which the palace, the grand houses and the numerous associations of cooks and confectioners passed on from generation to generation. The Turkish saying "Never mind what you ate and drank, tell me where you have been and what you have seen", shows it was considered bad manners to talk about food and this is why there is little cullinary literature in Turkish.

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:44 pm: Edit

The origin of Chinese pastry can be traced backe to the Neolithic Age when the stone grinder was invented to make the grinding of grain possible. During the Spring and Autumn periods, there were oil-fried pastry and steamed pastries such as honey cake, Yishi, Shenshi (made of grounded grains of cereal crops) , and junu (a ring-shaped oil-fried food).

By momoreg on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 01:45 pm: Edit

This one goes under the heading of ‘give credit where credit is due’:
Honey was the only sweetening agent used during the Middle Ages. Later sugar, originally from India, and introduced in Europe through the Middle East and Venice, began to be used

By tj on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 03:03 pm: Edit

all of the above is old news.i know bread and sour cultures originated in the middle east ,an i know that you will find this or that roll or flat breads ,or something sweet with wheat all over the planet,but you MISS THE POINT ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
please tell me what all of the above contributed to your work as a baker or pastry chef ?
this has no professional value what so ever exept to "know" about the existance of such preperatons ,and please dont no body tell me they have ever implemented any turkish dish in their daily work. i lived in the middle east for 8 years,in cairo, baharein, tunis, teheran, istambul, and aman ,as a corporet chef for a chaine of hotel, i know all their "baked goods" and foods ,but they have contributed nothing ,or very very little to the profession!

By tj on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 03:10 pm: Edit

by the way,
i have been doing this type of discusion for 20 years with many people. i know all the responses by heart .i have heard it all ,but nothing convincing!
you can all go to your local libraries and dig what ever information you want and there is alot of it ,but it has little or no value to the professional world of bakers or pastry chefs.
i you will, please tell me when was the last time you heard of a professional baking school that will teach you to prepare any (!) of the above items that momoreg was so happy to quote for us?
and what value will it add to you to know about any of them? other than the 2 cents history lesson....

By tj on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 03:17 pm: Edit

for almost 30 years i have traveled the world as a corporate chef, and seen probebly all there is to see in food.you dont know what it was like in 1968
trying to get fare quality ingredients in hong kong or bankok ,or delhi, or istambul, or kenya, or egypt ,etc. in the 60 an 70`s it was close to mission imposible , due to the fact that the locals had very little or no interest in this field at all. no heavy cream , no chocolate (in many cases very poor chocolate), no good flour, no
gelatine, etc.we had ,in many occassions, import outselves what we needed.plus there were no bakery or pastry shop to go to anywhere ,exept for local pita shops with some baklava and ma`amuls if you are lucky!

By tj on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 03:20 pm: Edit

so please , even though it is dificult for some,
try to be totaly honest ,and tell me what contributions did any of the above made for the PROFESSIONAL baking world.
and please dont tell me stories about fried indian gulab jamun in honey syrop.
you know what i meen ....

By tj on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 03:22 pm: Edit

this discussion is great.
i think it should be moved under a different subject , so people can read it and participate. by now ,it is way off creme brulee.
what do you think?

By pam on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 11:52 pm: Edit

please give it up, are you doing it just to be argumentative? every culture has given something to the world & thats all that counts.just because other cultures don't like the type of desserts that are popular in europe & here does not mean they're inferior.they don't need your approval.

By Ramodeo (Ramodeo) on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 12:35 am: Edit

tj,
It is quite clear that you do not want to have a discussion, you only want to stand on your self made pedestal and preach your own gospel. You will never be convinced by anything anyone has to say because your mind is closed to other viewpoints! First you demand facts and dates, and when someone takes the time to post them here, you just dismiss them as a 2 cent history lesson!?! pam is right - give it up.

If your "professional baking world" is one where there is no recognition of all the cultures that originally made things like bread and chocolate possible, than count me out. You can have your profession to yourself. I'll just stick with making quality baked goods and pastries in my little midwestern world, selling them to people who enjoy and appreciate them.

By Doucefrance (Doucefrance) on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 08:30 am: Edit

tj,
C'est facile de balancer des vannes derriere un anonymat total, on n'a pas les tripes de devoiler son identite alors qu'on se pretend "le meilleur'?
Vous etes d'une pretention et d'une suffisance ecoeurante. Vous trouvez la discusion drole? Il n'y a pas vraiment de discussion dans la mesure ou vous denigrez systematiquement tout et tout le monde...
Vous me faites penser a quelques MOF pretentieux qui vivent sur leur acquis et ont oublie qu'on ne sait jamais tout et qu'il faut continuer a apprendre pour evoluer ( je pense a PAILLASSON et a DERIEN). Vous etes loin de l'humilite et de l'esprit de partage des MOF que j'ai cotoyes pendant que j'enseignais a l'ENSP, des gens competents, ouverts. Et je vois mal Jean CREVEUX tenir les propos que vous tenez.
Je serais curieuse de voir votre travail, vous qui voulez en remontrer a tout le monde!
Helene

By pam on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 01:47 pm: Edit

doucefrance, for those of us who don't understand french but like to be included in these conversations, can you please translate. it has the tone that you don't agree with tj

By Panini (Panini) on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 06:27 pm: Edit

We have a saying where I come from.Trying to have a one sided discussion is like peeing into a fan.Pardon my french.

By abc on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 07:33 pm: Edit

i think the forum was moved to "the great pastry debate"

By Doucefrance (Doucefrance) on Monday, January 24, 2000 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Pam, here is the translation you asked for, and by the way, I'm surprised tj didn't answer!
"It's easy to hide behind anonimity, or don't you have the guts to say who you are you who thinks you are "the best"?
You are so infatuated with yourself it is sickening. You think the discussion is fun? But there is no discussion when you have only disdain for the others and what they do.
You remind me of some pretentious MOF who forget that you never know everything and that you must continue learning to progress (I think of PAILLASSON and DERIEN). You are far from the humility of the MOF I was lucky to teach with at the ENSP, open-minded professionals. And I can't imagine Jean CREVEUX speaking the way you do.
I would be curious to see your work, you who mean to teach everybody a lesson.
Helene

By Admin (Admin) on Monday, January 24, 2000 - 08:32 pm: Edit

OK Enough...

Appologies for not moving this earlier.

George