Topic: "Does it matter what a bhuna looks like ?"

[Peripatetic Phil]

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.

[chewytikka]

What did your Green Tandoori taste of exactly.
Just curious as you seem to eat and enjoy, just about anything in your experiments.

[Malc.]

You knew this would provoke a response from me Phil, so as it's now removed from the topic it was posted too.....

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!

[Peripatetic Phil]

What did your Green Tandoori taste of exactly.   Just curious as you seem to eat and enjoy, just about anything in your experiments.

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.

[Peripatetic 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.

[spiceyokooko]

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

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.

[chewytikka]

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.

cheers Chewy

[Peripatetic Phil]

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'

[Malc.]

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.

[spiceyokooko]

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.