Gourmet shit good hate thread

[Anonymous No.6721205]

What in the hell is up with the past few years of "Gourmet" shit food like Tater Tots, Hot Dogs and French Fries.

This shit makes no sense to me, it is literally the same recipes that are plated "nice" with some fru fru shit in the background.

[Anonymous No.6721238]

>>6721205
Dunno where you live, maybe flyover or a slave state, but here they're not the same. It's better ingredients, and less pre-cooked microwave garbage from a bag. Seems like a good thing all around unless poor.

[Anonymous No.6721281]

>, it is literally the same recipes that are plated "nice" with some fru fru shit in the background

no it usually isn't

[Anonymous No.6721284]

>>6721238
>> It's better ingredients, and less pre-cooked microwave garbage

But if you have nicer ingredients why would you waste them on a crappy dish like that?

[Anonymous No.6721285]

>>6721205
While I agree that many foods are best enjoyed in an unfussy form, and upscale tater tots seem just plain silly. But the quality of the standard issue has fallen so far for things like hot dogs, burgers and pizza that it's usually worth spending the money for better examples.

But using the word "gourmet" to describe it sounds really antique, like you're living in 1970.

[Anonymous No.6721286]

>>6721205
>I dislike quality sausages and duck fat fries

Yeah, shit can get spendy, but what type of joyless fuck are you that you can't enjoy good food?

[Anonymous No.6721313]

>>6721286
>Yeah, shit can get spendy, but what type of joyless fuck are you that you can't enjoy good food?

OP here, my whole point is that while it may taste really good, it's not actually gourmet.

Apparently Gourmet now means "not complete shit"

[Anonymous No.6721333]

>>6721313
>Apparently Gourmet now means "not complete shit"
This has been the case since WWII. The standard stuff people eat is basically warmed over war rations, and if you want anything better it's "gourmet".

The difference is that now the middle class is realizing just how bad the standard actually is, and is looking for something better. Unfortunately their standards are so shit most of them never make it past Panera, Chipotle or Five Guys. Because in the end they really like the IDEA of better. Most of them really can't taste much of a difference because their taste is shot from years of fucking Doritos and Diet Coke.

[Anonymous No.6721335]

>>6721284
What do you mean by "crappy"? I like Michelin stars and obscure wines as much as the next insufferable foodie, but there's nothing wrong with hot dogs and hamburgers. I bet you wear a tie to work when everyone around is in gingham shirts with the sleeves rolled up. And you probably use a double Windsor or something cringey like that.

[Anonymous No.6721348]

>>6721335

I mean processing the food in such a way as the quality of the ingredieent is obscured.

For example: if I have some really good potatoes I would prefer to roast them, or maybe make a nice mash--something where their flavor and texture can really shine. I don't see the point in using nice potatoes to make tator tots.

>> but there's nothing wrong with hot dogs and hamburgers

Agreed 100% bro. I wasn't knocking burgers and hot dogs. My point was simply that the ingredient ought to be matched to the dish. If you're making a preparation where the flavor or texture of the ingredient will be changed so much then why bother wasting good ingredients on it? There's nothing wrong with dive food--just the idea of using superlative ingredients to make it.

[Anonymous No.6721360]

>>6721348
Maybe you and I have different ideas of "superlative"

If I have a choice of my fries being made from potatoes, vs potato paste mixed with weird preservatives and anti caking agents, I'll take the potatoes. If they're made of yukon gold vs Adirondack red or whatever, that's less of a concern to me.

[Anonymous No.6721381]

>>6721348
>There's nothing wrong with dive food--just the idea of using superlative ingredients to make it.
But a hot dog can contradict this. The cheapest commodity grade hot dogs bear little resemblance to natural casing all beef (or beef and pork) dogs.

The same is true for burgers. There's a world of difference between buying a box of frozen patties and having your butcher grind you a mix of chuck, fillet and short rib.

If you're used to skinless franks and frozen burgers from a box you might think seeking out better seems pretentious. If you're used to better the low end stuff might be hard to enjoy.

[Anonymous No.6721386]

>>6721360
>Maybe you and I have different ideas of "superlative"

Yes, that's clearly what's up.

>If I have a choice of my fries being made from potatoes, vs potato paste mixed with weird preservatives and anti caking agents, I'll take the potatoes.

Oh, I agree completely. I don't even consider the former to be food at all. I would never consider eating it unless starving. I assumed it was a given that when we're talking about "Fries" we mean that they're made from potatoes.

>>if they're made of yukon gold vs Adirondack red or whatever, that's less of a concern to me.
Sorry, I thought that's the sort of thing you meant with all the mention of "Gourmet", "michelin star", etc.

[Anonymous No.6721398]

>>6721381
>But a hot dog can contradict this. The cheapest commodity grade hot dogs bear little resemblance to natural casing all beef (or beef and pork) dogs.

Agreed that there is a difference between the two suasages you mentioned, but I wouldn't say that a "natural sausage" is necessarily a superlative ingredient. It's just a plain ol normal sausage. Nothing wrong with it--they're great--but it's nothing special either.

When I wrote that "there's s a problem with uising superlative ingredients to make it" I meant that if someone handed me a kobe beef tenderloin I wouldn't use that to make sausage. I wouldn't use Johnny Redcorn grits to make the batter for a corn dog. I wouldn't use sashimi-grade tilefish to make fish-n-chips.

An "all natural casing - no fillers" sausage is indeed delicious, but it's not "superlative" nor is it made from superlative ingredients.

>>If you're used to skinless franks and frozen burgers from a box you might think seeking out better seems pretentious.
Agreed.
My point was that it's silly to take high end ingredients and use them to make a copy of a fast-food meal. Making them without processed garbage is a given.

[Anonymous No.6721416]

you're autistic, OP. do you not like paté? how is mash not 'heavily processed' by these standards? no ingredient is above being transformed.

[Anonymous No.6721418]

>>6721398
>My point was that it's silly to take high end ingredients and use them to make a copy of a fast-food meal.
It's silly if you fuck it up. Do it right and it can be amazing. like pic related.

[Anonymous No.6721422]

>>6721418
Or this example. (Yes, that is foie gras in the center).

[Anonymous No.6721423]

>>6721416

in the context of a food discussion the word "processed" usually implies low quality ingredients with the goal of being as cheap as possible or perhaps extending shelf life, with flavor and nutrition being of secondary concern.

of course there are plenty of "processed" foods which are awesome: Iberico ham, fine cheese, wine, dry-aged steak, etc. Those are all processed but in a very different way than, say, bulk french fries for fast food.

[Anonymous No.6721427]

>>6721418

I think it's still silly. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure that's an amazingly delicious burger--but it's a matter of opportunity cost. There are other things that could have been made with those ingredients which would showcase them better than the burger.

[Anonymous No.6721442]

>>6721427
>There are other things that could have been made with those ingredients which would showcase them better than the burger.
Not necessarily. What do you do with the rest of that grass fed pasture raised cow once you've used all best cuts for steaks? There's still lots of meat on there. I see nothing wrong with taking the chuck and some of the short rib to make amazing burgers.

[Anonymous No.6721445]

>>6721423

and we're talking about high quality ingredients that are 'processed' in a way that favours deliciousness not shelf-life and only resemble the low quality products because they're comforting.

[Anonymous No.6721653]

>>6721442
>What do you do with the rest of that grass fed pasture raised cow once you've used all best cuts for steaks?

That's my point exactly. You use the best cuts for steaks and you use the trim for the burgers.

If that burger was made with trim then I have no problem with it. If it's not made with trim then like I said I think the meat could have better uses.


>>6721445
>and we're talking about high quality ingredients that are 'processed' in a way that favours deliciousness

I think that's where we disagree. I don't think that using high end ingredients to make a hamburger is favoring deliciousness. I think it's favoring the comfort factor you mentioned. That's not to say it can't be tasty as well, but the main goal seems to be the "comfort food" angle or "how fancy can I make this hamburger" rather than "how can I make this beef and these veggies taste their best"? I believe those ingredients could be used to make something more delicious than a hamburger, instead.

[Anonymous No.6721679]

>>6721653
The secret to many of the great burgers in upscale restaurants these days is some short rib in the mix. I don't consider short rib a "trim" cut, but don't mind some of it being sacrificed to make better burgers.

[Anonymous No.6721705]

>>6721679
What kind of "short rib" are we talking about anon?

Short rib from your typical supermarket cattle? Sure, go for it. Burgers. But I wouldn't call that an exceptional or special ingredient.

Short rib from Wagyu? I'm not going to waste that on a burger.

[Anonymous No.6721709]

>>6721653

the comfort factor has a direct bearing on deliciousness though, that's kind of the point.

there isn't one best way to eat meat. hamburgers are delicious for their own reasons. you sound like you have a sophomoric, pretentious idea of what being a good cook is.

that said, obviously putting a fillet or kobe or something in a hamburger is dumb because it completely wastes the benefits of those products.

[Anonymous No.6721723]

>>6721709
>the comfort factor has a direct bearing on deliciousness though, that's kind of the point.

Yeah, but that varies. And my point was that I personally don't get any benefit out of it being a "burger", so I'd rather use the ingredients for something different.

>>there isn't one best way to eat meat. hamburgers are delicious for their own reasons.
Agreed, and agreed.
I'm not saying the burger-eaters are wrong. I'm just stating that my personal preference for what to do with high-end ingredients would be to make something other than a burger. I don't expect everyone else to agree with my preferences, nor am I trying to change your mind.

If you hand me supermarket beef I'll gladly make a hamburger. If you hand me something high-end I'm going to pass on the burger and will make something different instead.

[Anonymous No.6721734]

>>6721205
>This shit makes no sense to me
says it all really, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.6721867]

>>6721205
i know this feel, i once bought 2 premade bison burgers for 5 bucks.

tasted barely any different than beef, and tbh the flavour profile of beef was much better.

sometimes you can hit the jackpot though.
also you cant go wrong with a good 20$ steak.

[Anonymous No.6722967]

>>6721867
>>6721867
what I don't like is when you meet someone and they want to go out and pick up some food to make a home made meal as a "date" type thing and she is looking for the steaks with the least amount of fat including marbling because red meat already makes you fat and can't have any extra fat which is useless to her and doesn't need to be eaten. Then she turns the oven on 350 and covers them in A1 and sticks them in for 30 mins and says U WILL LOVE MY STEAKS I AM GOOD COOK YEAH

[Anonymous No.6722976]

>>6722967
That's never happened to you

[Anonymous No.6722984]

>>6722976
>>6722976
but it sounded like something that would fit in here. you want a busted lip, boy?

[Anonymous No.6722995]

>>6722984
So you just made up some bullshit to fit in?

[Anonymous No.6723002]

>>6722995
no but if that person (or you if it's you) wants to state that I did, I won't argue it over it on the internet. Not like I can provide a photo or video guide of every part of my life to prove it did happen. You cannot just take on every single internet battle. Must pick and choose.

[Anonymous No.6723032]

>>6721205
A lot of food that is considered shit now started out as gourmet, and vice versa.
That said, hot dogs have always been meh-tier at best, though very tasty meh-tier when done right.
It's not that they couldn't be very well done sausages in hot-dog style, but in most cases they are just meh-tier sausages dressed up with nice ingredients that haven't been abused to shit.
French fries started out as a gourmet treatment of potatoes and it went downhill from there.
It's a good thing to bring them back to a "rare treat" status, IMO, since deep fried potato isn't something that people should consume on a regular basis.
I'm not sure about the origin of tater tots, but the same basic concept applies.