Classic/traditional vs non-traditional recipes: which do you usually make?

[The Late Night Gourmet]

I thought of this as I read a thread about Philly Cheesesteaks just now. I have to be honest that I completely forgot that the Traditional Philly Cheesesteak recipe is "supposed" to have Cheese-Whiz. But, I have also read that provolone (my preference) is the traditional way to prepare a Philly. While I am interested in learning what the Correct preparation is, I don't want to make something that I love and then (in my opinion) mess it up with an inferior product (I'm looking at you, Cheese Whiz).

So, that got me to thinking about how I build a recipe:

1. If I've never made a particular recipe before, I will check multiple sources to see what the proper preparation is. I am often greatly amused by how many places claim to have the Authentic recipe, and how different they can be. But, there are often common elements.
2. If I encounter an ingredient I don't love, I have a decision to make.
   1. I will almost always try to make the recipe in a classic way, at least initially, because I want to see if I like it that way. Maybe there will be something I will like about having artificially-flavored liquidy cheese on a beautiful cut of steak (there isn't, but I had to try it to find out).
   2. If it's a truly classic recipe (like Beef Bourguignon), I will actually feel a sense of guilt in modifying it, as if I'm offending generations of cooks who've prepared the recipe the right way.
3. After making a recipe a few times, I will often modify it. This isn't something I usually intentionally do just to change things. If I like a recipe, I will probably keep making it that way. But, this also depends on the recipe, since some lend themselves better to modification than others.

Please answer assuming you get to pick whatever ingredients you want for your recipe. I have had many times when I thought I had a certain ingredient (or more than one) and I was wrong, resulting in a modification to the recipe.

 

[Morning Glory]

Almost always I subvert, play around or improvise. Maybe not only when cooking.

 

[mjd]

My ex has always worked at the airport so he ALWAYS works holidays. As a result, I planned our "holidays" around his schedule so I'm not a stickler for tradition. I feel that ANY day can be *special* if we make it that way and it's not defined by a calendar. With that said, I follow some traditions and make NEW ones all the time!

 

[LissaC]

Subvert, always. I'm someone who's fond of studying the past, and I have a certain fascination with "old" things, but when it comes to cooking I'm not sure if there's a point of doing a recipe the "traditional" way. You're aiming to create something full of flavor and delicious and if there's a "deviation" from the "traditional" recipe that tastes even better than the original one, why stick the traditional?

Additionally, what is a "traditional" recipe anyway? Most recipes were shared by word of mouth. So you have several people claiming to be cooking something the "traditional" way, how can we know who is right?

 

[The Late Night Gourmet]

Additionally, what is a "traditional" recipe anyway? Most recipes were shared by word of mouth. So you have several people claiming to be cooking something the "traditional" way, how can we know who is right?

That's what I was thinking as I looked at the Philly Cheesesteak recipe. Oh, and here's one for CraigC, medtran49, ElizabethB and a few others: make a gumbo and claim it's a traditional recipe. The firestorm from some members of the Discuss Cooking forum when I dared to claim that a gumbo I made was a traditional preparation was so nasty that I left the forum! I don't expect such a horrendous reaction here, but certainly people have different ideas of what's Traditional.

And, as you say, the point is always to make something that tastes good. If the original is bland, and I spice it up, I won't claim it's a classic recipe, but I hope I can claim that it's delicious.

 

[TastyReuben]

Well...this is a hard one to answer/vote for.

As I've said before, I have no real respect for tradition, or authentic. I think they're essentially meaningless terms, because I can walk down any street in, oh, Kiev, and find 100 people making Chicken Kiev 100 different ways, and each will swear it's the "right" way to do it, it's how my nana made it, whatever. At best, I'll concede that there are multiple ways to do something that should fit under a single umbrella of authenticity, but those pesky people people claiming their way is the only way won't settle for that.

I'm the one who first mentioned Cheez Whiz in the cheesesteaks topic. It's very important to note that when I said that, I put "proper" in quotes. That's significant:

A "proper" cheesesteak has Cheez Whiz.
A proper cheesesteak has Cheez Whiz.

Those are two very different statements.

Now, that said, onto cooking. When I make something from a recipe (which is almost always), I follow that recipe. I don't care if it follows tradition or not. I look at the ingredients, I look at the directions, I decide I want to have a go, and that's that.

Please note that that's an entirely different concept than whether a person wants to eat something that's not traditional. I'm reminded that I made a cassoulet a while back that didn't use duck confit, and didn't use a traditional French sausage. I was ok with preparing it, and if I'd gone to your house and you made it for me, and described it, I certainly wouldn't push it away and declare, "Sacre bleu! That's not cassoulet!" I'd happily jump right in, because I like all the ingredients and they sound good together.

I guess that's what I'm really trying to say - if it tastes good, and I'm willing to go through the preparation, then I don't really care if it's traditional or not, I'm happy.

Now, sometimes, I'll learn about a traditional way with a dish, and it'll intrigue me, and I'll want to try it to see if I can do it or not, and to see if I'll like it, but that's as much about the task as the method.

 

[CraigC]

I've said it before "traditional" and "authentic" belong to family recipes! Period. The original concept probably evolved from peasant food to begin with and just because some so called chef decided their version was the "authentic" or "traditional" version means diddly squat to me.

 

[LissaC]

Gumbo is another good example, I've seen countless recipes claiming to be the original one. Curry is another good one, the ingredients of an "original" curry spice mix are different in different countries, inside India variations are immense and a lot of blends are particular to a certain household.

 

[ElizabethB]

Wow, good topic The Late Night Gourmet .
When I decide to try something I have never cooked before I research recipes. I rarely settle on one. I usually combine ingredients from multiple recipes. I refer to recipes more for the base ingredients and technique.
Lets talk about Gumbo. There are two main divisions of opinion - Cajun Gumbo and Creole Gumbo. Cajun Gumbo is roux based. Seafood and meat are never included in the same gumbo. Cajun Gumbo is found in deep south, central Louisiana - a multi Parish (county) region known as Acadiana. Creole Gumbo is tomato based and found in the NOLA region. Restaurants in NOLA will have shrimp and sausage in the same gumbo. Last year we had a Gumbo Cook Along. I made Gumbo Z'Herbes - green gumbo. It was delicious - rich, aromatic and earthy. I kept asking myself is it really gumbo? Two days later the SIBS had dinner at Mom's. I brought some of the Gumbo for them to taste and pass judgement. It got a thumbs up all the way around. Yes it was real gumbo. Now, had I used a tomato base instead of a roux base it may have gotten points for taste but it would never have been considered real gumbo.
Regional differences.
Boiled crawfish - there is a "thing" about putting smoked sausage or Andouille in the pot with boiled crawfish. Younger people - stepson's generation, think that is traditional. It is not. My generation and older never put sausage in a crawfish boil. I actually think that is something that originated in East Texas.
Those of you that have been around awhile will remember a former member who really ticked people off by going on and on about recipes not being "traditional". She was like a dog with a bone. She was rude, belligerent and argumentative. Not a good fit for this forum. She was not the only reason but part of the reason that I stopped participating for awhile. When it comes to "traditional" I have to remind myself that my opinion is just that - my opinion. My Baby Brother is a pretty good cook - his Crawfish Pie is to die for. We frequently disagree about recipes and techniques. Because we love each other we agree to disagree.

 

[CookieMonster]

don't overlook - there are first hand living witnesses to the Philadelphia Cheese Steak who were alive and enjoying them before the documented "invention" of Cheese Whiz.
very very few dishes have clear unquestion-ed/able documentation as to origin and 'the original.'
but sometimes pesky historical facts get in the way of urban/marketing "truths"

i.e. - there exists no defensible recipe/argument/debate about what "the one true original omelet" is.
....and thousands of other dishes, including "beef stew"

couldn't click the poll, because I don't give a rat's patut about 'original' - if I like the dish but can make the dish tastier to my tastes, I do. primo evidence: I dislike sage, intensely. no "original" recipe with lots of sage will ever come off my stove.

it's the 'dish' that's important - a collection of ingredients, method and seasonings.
sometime the 'original' is not all that tasty.

we should probably start a thread on "Old Original Recipes that Make You Gag"

 

[Windigo]

Some things are traditional because they can't be deviated from unless you want to end up with a different product. A roux for example can only be a roux if it's made with flour and butter and not browned. Else it is a brown roux. Same with some sauces (the mother sauces) and pastries/desserts. A creme anglaise is not a creme anglaise if it's not made with vanilla etc. It can still be good, but it's not following tradition.

I have no problem deviating from tradition, cooking is always evolving and tradition changes with time. However, as the above examples some things are classics for a reason and should be a made a certain way to work . So I am voting Often non traditional, because I like doing things my own way but also realise some rules aren't meant to be broken.

Also, as a retired pro cook I have to say that if you don't stick to certain traditions or classics and make them as they should be made, customers are going to be dissapointed. If you serve a crème brulee and it turns out to be rice pudding, customers will have an issue with that no matter how good it tastes or how creative it is. Being a home cook allows more creativity than being pro cook.

 

[Burt Blank]

A roux for example can only be a roux if it's made with flour and butter

I sometime use potato flour or rice flour etc, I have been known to use various oils instead of butter. Chicken Smaltz works brilliantly for chicken pies.

 

[caseydog]

Gumbo is another good example, I've seen countless recipes claiming to be the original one. Curry is another good one, the ingredients of an "original" curry spice mix are different in different countries, inside India variations are immense and a lot of blends are particular to a certain household.

There is a fine line between "gumbo" and "cajun flavored soup." I don't think there is an "original" recipe. But, there are some things that cajuns do, and don't do. It is not carved in stone, but cajun cooks do what their mamas did, which is what their mamas did, and so on.

I adhere to tradition to a point, and like to make traditional foods, just to taste them. In the case of gumbo, I don't mix meat and seafood in a gumbo. A lot of people do, but I just don't feel comfortable with it. But, I make my Texas chili with pinto beans -- supposedly a mortal sin.

On the other hand, I cook a lot of food that is inspired by traditional foods. But, if deviate from the traditional recipe too much, I don't call it by its traditional name. If I make coq au vin, but use cider instead of wine, I'm not going to call it "coq au vin with cider." I'll call it what it is, cider braised chicken, or something like that. If all I do is replace pearl onions with diced onions, I'm okay with calling it coq au vin.

CD

 

[caseydog]

I sometime use potato flour or rice flour etc, I have been known to use various oils instead of butter. Chicken Smaltz works brilliantly for chicken pies.

In cajun country, a roux is nothing more than a 50/50 mix of flour and fat. I use canola oil, because making a chocolate (dark) roux with butter is a major PITA -- it burns too easily. I learned that growing up in Port Arthur from some real cajun mamas.

If potato flour or rice flower works, why not. Although, I am perplexed about the rice flour.

I've never used schmaltz, but want to. I've heard great things about it.

CD

 

[Windigo]

I sometime use potato flour or rice flour etc, I have been known to use various oils instead of butter. Chicken Smaltz works brilliantly for chicken pies.

Yes, but a restaurant customer here expects a certain standard, and as the rest of the post clarifies: that's the point of view I am coming from.