For some days, I am receiving friendly emails about Note By Note Cooking (Cookery?), but one that I had this morning is particularly interesting. It is:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, when one read what you say about NbN Cooking with such simplicity, one asks why cooks did not begin earlier... Indeed, the creation of new taste and odors from simple compounds goes hand by hand with the creation of new texture... which is very fashionable with Molecular Gastronomy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed there is a slight confusion in the end, about Molecular Cooking, and Molecular Gastronomy. Molecular Cooking is cooking whereas Molecular Gastronomy is science. But the beginning is important.
I answered :
Why were cooks so slow to investigate Note by note cooking?
1. because it is not so easy to escape tradition, which is often considered (lazzily) as a maximum of what can be done in the kitchen
2. because there is a lot of work to be done in order to learn to compose odors, tastes, consistencies
3. because the practice is different of traditional cooking that chefs learned to do at school;
4. because compounds are used, and too frequently, one would say"chemicals", even if water, sugar, salt are not chemicals but compounds.
Indeed the last reason seems to me the most important, and I did a whole book about it (La Sagesse du chimiste). At times when the public wants some "naturals" (a comfortable and silly value!), using compounds seems provocative! However, one should observe that salt and sugar, which have the same intellectual status, show no difficulties.
Finally, as often when a breakthrough, there is some evidence... and resistances... Last year, certain conservative media reacted against Molecular Cooking.. but I am awaiting worse with Note by Note cooking. I take the bet tahtI will be assused of being "sold" to the industry, and the chemical industry for example
But let them bark... and let's work!
