Getting back to serious tediousness, why can't they call it "steam-grilled ribs" or "par-boiled ribs" or just plain "ribs," as Twin Anchors does?

Count me in as another person that doesn't like H1 ribs or tips. I understand that consistancy can be a problem, but I've been there FIVE times (including one visit to the old location.) I have found the tips overly tough and the ribs dried and tasteless.

And before someone questions by BBQ pedigree, let me say that I have been eating great barbecue since I was very young, having been raised in Texas. I have tried many of the old school places there and in Chicago and feel that Lem's and BA (as well at Hillary and Cooks in Maywood) provide a much better tip.

veeral
a regular lurker.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:To me, a good argument is entertaining, enlightening and -- hopefully if rarely -- a means for arriving at (*gasp*) truth.

Truth? Now I don't believe you ever went to grad school.

H1 has served me some of the worst BBQ I've had in the city. But I keep coming back because H1 has also served me some of the best BBQ I've had in the city. IMHO, consistency seems to be a problem more so at H1 than at BA's or Lem's.

NR, since the number of places that serve, what the self appointed kings of BBQ, call meat Jello, out number the "smoke ring" places by hundreds of times, perhaps you guys should stop calling it BBQ, and change the name to something other than BBQ.


We vote with our rib buying dollars, and "smoke ring" has lost that election. You know, majority rules and all that.

Isn't this barbecue thing just turning into a prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate?

Judging by the popularity of the McRib whenever it comes back, perhaps we shouldn't allow gale street inn et al to call their meat product "ribs", since it isn't chopped formed and artificially flavored generic pork.

And since more people eat the McRib than GSI's so-called "ribs", we should trust the masses.

I'd say this whole argument begs some question or another, but I think I'd be using it wrong.

About BBQ - people do seem to think BBQ involves meat with sauce on it, not so much the preparation of this meat.

About criticizing - I have expressed the opinion that I had less than optimal meals at both Honey 1 and Little Three Happiness. And I definitely did not feel like I was jumped upon about it. I think it was because I described what I thought was not good, and didn't say "I had the worst moogoogaipan of my life at LTH" (which I didn't). While I'm a fairly regular participant, I wouldn't characterize myself as a "board favorite" or anything

leek wrote:About BBQ - people do seem to think BBQ involves meat with sauce on it, not so much the preparation of this meat.

About criticizing - I have expressed the opinion that I had less than optimal meals at both Honey 1 and Little Three Happiness. And I definitely did not feel like I was jumped upon about it. I think it was because I described what I thought was not good, and didn't say "I had the worst moogoogaipan of my life at LTH" (which I didn't). While I'm a fairly regular participant, I wouldn't characterize myself as a "board favorite" or anything

Lee, your a favorite of mine

To dip my toes in this discussion...

One of the things I find, surely going back to Chowhound as well, is the fault may be, well not with the posters but the readers. That is, people tend to take each individual proclamation as the new truth, as Jim would say, and if it does not jib with old truths, well battles get fought.

Now, I've been advocating for a long time, a post early and post often school of posting. I think there are good reasons for doing this. First, obviously, many places ARE inconsistent, and it's a good and interesting thing to learn. Second, people get different things from their dining, or put another way, different things mean different things to them. For instance, I adore La Quebrada, but on certain objective scales, I can see many faults with it as a restaurant. Someone who values things differently than me may not like the place as much. Last, more posts bring more data points on a place; different dishes, different ordering strategies, etc. Thus, no post is the word on a place, but all posts add words.

If people post based on singular experiences, there will be outliers, there will be off nights, there will, by the basis the some people even like Jimmy Johns, opinions all across the spectrum. Hopefully, we can accept various opinions, and when experiences differ from ours, then we can probe, question or try to understand why experiences differed. Take the Penguin, have not many people learned from the reports on the boards how to maximize the Penguin experience by getting frequent tastes? Each post only helps us, the eater in the long run.

Like I say, I think we have to be accomodating to all posters and all opinions, but I also think we tend to give too much weight or urgency to the latest post. LTHForum is a journey not a destination.

Vital Information wrote:Like I say, I think we have to be accomodating to all posters and all opinions, but I also think we tend to give too much weight or urgency to the latest post. LTHForum is a journey not a destination.

And scene.

Vital Information wrote: LTHForum is a journey not a destination.

I swear I've heard that at temple during the high holidays . . . but probably with respect to life . . . or maybe the LTH Forum.

Dmnkly wrote:So the problem is, if one wants to limit the term BBQ to the former definition, what the heck do you call the latter? As amusing as Meat Jell-o is (and this is a name that really, really needs an actual dish to go with it), I have to believe there's something a little more diplomatic

I'm sure, after reading this, that either Moto or Alinea will be serving this very soon.

Flip

BR wrote:

Vital Information wrote: LTHForum is a journey not a destination.

I swear I've heard that at temple during the high holidays . . . but probably with respect to life . . . or maybe the LTH Forum.

"The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

Flip wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:So the problem is, if one wants to limit the term BBQ to the former definition, what the heck do you call the latter? As amusing as Meat Jell-o is (and this is a name that really, really needs an actual dish to go with it), I have to believe there's something a little more diplomatic

I'm sure, after reading this, that either Moto or Alinea will be serving this very soon.

Flip

pork belly . . . smoked hickory vapor . . . bbq sauce powder . . . even better!

not so much of a stretch as jello or gelatin is basically a meat
by- product anyway.

Vital Information wrote:LTHForum is a journey not a destination.

All we are is dust in the wind.

Ok, I really don't mean to continue to provide life support to a thread that wanted to die a long time ago, but I am avoiding doing any meaningful work today, so here goes.

While it is true that the word Barbecue originally meant slow-cooking over coals in a pit, I think that meaning was officially lost when Barbecue became a flavor rather than a method of cooking. After all, Barbecue potato chips are certainly not slow-cooked over coals. That transformation is largely due to a misinterpretation of the name "barbecue sauce". Instead of meaning a condiment for barbecue, it came to mean a barbecue "flavored" sauce. In fact, this type of sauce is most often used on grilled meat, in which case it is actually a "grilling" sauce and not barbecue sauce at all. But, it does give things that "barbecued flavor" (hence the addition of liquid smoke).

I have been trying to train myself to properly apply the terms "grilling" and "barbecuing", but it is too late to convince most people that simply cooking on an outdoor grill, is not barbecuing, or that such devices are more properly called "charcoal grills", not barbecues. Shows like "Barbecue University" don't help much with making that distinction either, since what that guy mainly does is grilling. Then again, "Charcoal Grilling University' doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Anyhow, I think it is way too late to get the cow back in the barn on this one. Therefore, it is incumbent on those of us who do make the distinction to find new terminology for traditional BBQ (or is it Bar-B-Q) to distinguish it from grilling, or worse yet, boiling in barbecue flavored sauce. Yesterday, I saw an ad in the Red Eye for a bar called Houndstooth (I think it was mentioned in another thread). They call themselves "Chicago's home for smoked BBQ". Maybe that is the way to go.

sabersix wrote:More people vote with their rib buying dollars at, oh say Gail Street Inn, in a single day, than Honey1 does in a week. What does this say?

The old "vote with your dollars" line. I hope high school econ was good to you.

It would have a lot more creedence if you were comparing two very similar products, such as Burger King hamburgers and Mcdonalds hamburgers, which market and serve to similar demographics and provide products at similar prices and similar quality levels with similar marketing budgets and have similar accessibility (i.e. you can consider these homogenous products). You can really only use your "vote with your dollars" argument with homogenous products.

Based upon your logic, you could posit that Red Lobster and Olive Garden are better restaurants since people crowd those places rather than the higher quality Mom and Pop places down the street. If you believe that, then knock your socks off and enjoy yourself.

On a weird level, you have to respect those that argue for the lowest common denominator. But I'm not one of them.

Apples to apples. When I began this journey, I was trying to compare apples to apples, but someone else brought in MickyD.

I also find, in reading all the posts, there are others out there that agree that while the smoke ring is true BBQ, the vast majority of people have taken the phrase BBQ to mean grilled. See, Xerox or Kleenex. Can a small group of people on this board change the rest of the world? No, and they should accustom themselves to that fact, and join the rest of us.

In a mayoral election, lots of years ago, there were three candidates. One was Richard Daley, and another was Lar "American First" Daley. Even with a huge gap in what was spent, and a hugh difference in support, was this any less an election? Did the people speak?

And before going on, I would like to mention the Olive Garden was chosen the best Italian Restaurant in Milwaukee, by a readers vote, in the Milwaukee Journal, a couple of years ago.

Mom and Pop versus Olive Garden..... You can try to discount voting with your dollars, but the fact remains that you can not get into an Olive Garden on most nights with out an hour wait. Italian food. Food.... a homogenous product. How many restaurants close each year. How many last longer than three years. How often to you see a franchise close?

My biggest problem with some people on this board is very simple. They feel that they are the final judge when it comes to food or restaurants. To make it worse, they throw out lines like: lowest common denominator, or spoon-b-que, or meat jello.... ad nauseam.

They discount the thousands of other diners that pick the restaurant that serves them what they want. The patricans of this board think that the proles of Chicago spend their food dollars poorly, and that if only the proles followed the patricians example, there would be smoke house BBQ on each corner, rather than a restaurant that grills their ribs.

Offer your opinion, defend your opinion, but do not denigrate the opinion of others.

sabersix wrote:NR, since the number of places that serve, what the self appointed kings of BBQ, call meat Jello, out number the "smoke ring" places by hundreds of times, perhaps you guys should stop calling it BBQ, and change the name to something other than BBQ.


We vote with our rib buying dollars, and "smoke ring" has lost that election. You know, majority rules and all that.

I certainly hope this is tongue in cheek, though I fear it is not.

In issues of quality, I think it far more reasonable to assume that what is broadly popular -- especially when what is broadly popular is being sold by one or more corporations with the help of massive advertising campaigns -- is of low quality. Voting with rib-dollars... Yes, and tell me that by the same logic we must embrace Olive Garage and Culo di Beppo as the real purveyors of high quality Italian food...

*

There is a sort of reverse snobbery one encounters that involves the sneering dismissal of opinions of people who actually have taken the time to learn about something in depth -- whether it be BBQ or pizza or whatever, and that anti-elitist, pseudo-popularist line has always seemed painfully out of place on a board like this. If one is generally inclined to think that what is popular is good, one has no need to spend time reading the debates that go on here and will, in fact, inevitably feel at odds with and be irritated by much of what is written here.

Not every opinion is of equal value. In general, the opinions on a given topic of people who are genuinely knowledgeable about that topic are more valuble than those of people who are not especially knowledgeable about it but nevertheless like to hear themselves talk; and the knowledgeable persons' opinions are certainly more valuable than the opinions of those who mindlessly 'vote' with the dollar for whatever cheap product is sold to them.

By the above, I do not mean to say that a given topic should only be discussed on the board by people who have deep knowledge of it. Quite the opposite, a board like this is a place where people with interest in something can learn from others who know more about it. And since no one is expert in everything, we all take up different postures -- or at least we should -- in different discussions. There are some topics that come up here with frequency that I do know a lot about -- and I hope my opinion carries some weight in those discussions -- but there are lots and lots of topics that come up where I look to others, with their greater knowledge of those topics, to inform me and to help me understand, topics from Chinese dumplings to Cuban home cooking to Thai salads to Maxwell Street, to gardening, to Swedish herbal drinks, etc. etc. etc. ... and on to BBQ. I have opinions on many of these things but if I advance them, I advance them with appropriate circumspection and respect for the opinions of the more knowledgeable.

*

I post here regularly but I'm not really sure to what degree I am seen to be a 'regular' these days. I certainly do not subscribe blindly to the communis opinio LTH and have no qualms about arguing positions unpopular with some more or less large segment of the community, including some or many of the 'regulars'. To me, the bottom line is whether one has a basis in knowledge to argue a position. Without doubt, there are in this world -- hopefully not many here -- those who just like to assert their opinion on any and all topics and think that if they do it loudly and persistently enough, they shall have won the day, but such people are eventually recognised and held in appropriately low esteem. On the other hand, there are people who have real knowledge in certain areas and their opinions can and to varying degrees do hold sway. Luckily, LTH has quite a few such people.

Now, with respect to BBQ I do not claim to have any particular expertise or in depth knowledge but I do have a sense of what constitutes knowledge in some field and recognise that certain people who write here do have real experience and understanding of BBQ. I respect their opinions and if they generally agree that a BBQ joint is good, I'm inclined to believe them. Were I to try such a place and find that I did not like the BBQ, there are various ways I might react to that but I think it would be silly and, worse than that, disrespectful to say: "My opinions about BBQ are just as valid as those of all others. I will condemn the place without qualification and without reference to other opinions because, after all, I am Me!" No; if you want to say you didn't like the food, fine, but if you want to argue that, in effect, the opinions of other, knowledgeable people are wrong, then you need to make your case on the basis of your knowledge of and expertise in BBQ. An invocation of the popular tastes of Americans as seen through their 'dollar-vote' does not constitute such an argument.

That there is a common opinion among 'regulars' here is surely to some degree true and it comes up often enough that people express frustration with that -- a sense of being stifled -- that the issue shouldn't be dismissed out of hand by reasonable people. But on the other hand, I think it true that those who wish to advance a view that goes against apparent received-board-opinion should either do so in a circumspect manner or else have the intellectual ammo at hand to back up their case.

Consiliu, non impetu.

Antonius

sabersix wrote:

I also find, in reading all the posts, there are others out there that agree that while the smoke ring is true BBQ, the vast majority of people have taken the phrase BBQ to mean grilled. See, Xerox or Kleenex. Can a small group of people on this board change the rest of the world? No, and they should accustom themselves to that fact, and join the rest of us.

I'm not involved in the BBQ terminology controversy, but as a matter of principle, it seems odd to not merely allow the misuse of language go on, but to "join the rest" who misuse words that seem to have particular meanings. People routinely fail to make distinctions between infer/imply, affect/effect, etc. I can't imagine why it would seem wise to say, "Oh what the heck, everybody is doing it, so we might as well use these terms interchangeably and incorrectly as well."

sabersix wrote:Can a small group of people on this board change the rest of the world? No, and they should accustom themselves to that fact, and join the rest of us.

I really, really hope you don't mean this the way it's coming across. "Join the rest of us"...who know the Borg was opening up a BBQ-joint?

sabersix wrote:Apples to apples. When I began this journey, I was trying to compare apples to apples, but someone else brought in MickyD.

That would be me (so much for burying the hatchet I guess). IMHO MickeyD is a perfect illustration of your insipid, aim-low, "vote with dollars" argument, which you have now re-posted several times in the same thread. If you want to engage in intelligent discourse here, you're going to need to be a little more creative than that.

sabersix wrote:And before going on, I would like to mention the Olive Garden was chosen the best Italian Restaurant in Milwaukee, by a readers vote, in the Milwaukee Journal, a couple of years ago.

I doubt that this is true, as I remember seeing a JOKE about Olive Garden being voted the best Italian restaurant in The Onion not too long ago. If it is true, then it is a very sad commentary indeed on the state of Italian food in Milwaukee.

sabersix wrote:My biggest problem with some people on this board is very simple. They feel that they are the final judge when it comes to food or restaurants. To make it worse, they throw out lines like: lowest common denominator, or spoon-b-que, or meat jello.... ad nauseam.

Guess what? This is a FOOD board, and a serious one at that, dedicated to searching out deliciousness in all its forms. When people put as much effort into finding the best (insert type of food here) as many on this board do, strong opinions tend to develop. Deal with it or play elsewhere. Endlessly re-posting the same weak argument is not going to advance your cause.

sabersix wrote:And before going on, I would like to mention the Olive Garden was chosen the best Italian Restaurant in Milwaukee, by a readers vote, in the Milwaukee Journal, a couple of years ago.

Mom and Pop versus Olive Garden..... You can try to discount voting with your dollars, but the fact remains that you can not get into an Olive Garden on most nights with out an hour wait. Italian food. Food.... a homogenous product. How many restaurants close each year. How many last longer than three years. How often to you see a franchise close?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Olive Garden thing was in The Onion.

On why franchises don't go out of business, there are a number of reasons why independently owned restaurants fail more often then franchises and very few of them have to do with the quality of the food. Franchises have big corporate dollars behind them that can spend big on advertising leverage purchasing power to lower costs. Independents don't have these advantages, making them easy targets to get pushed out of the market by chains.

jesteinf wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Olive Garden thing was in The Onion.

Olive Garden Joke in The Onion

The Onion got me.... my bad. But according the the following site, it was voted third best in Milwaukee in 2002. Buca was voted the best.

http://milwaukee.citysearch.com/best/results/7779

I am getting off my horse, and will leave those windmills alone, but before I leave this thread, but not the board, I have to say that the following line is the most pompus thing I have seen since the discussion of allowing Woman/Blacks to have the right to vote. And I think makes my point.

"Not every opinion is of equal value." or so say Antonius.

sabersix wrote:The Onion got me.... my bad. But according the the following site, it was voted third best in Milwaukee in 2002. Buca was voted the best.

http://milwaukee.citysearch.com/best/results/7779

I am getting off my horse, and will leave those windmills alone, but before I leave this thread, but not the board, I have to say that the following line is the most pompus thing I have seen since the discussion of allowing Woman/Blacks to have the right to vote. And I think makes my point.

"Not every opinion is of equal value." or so say Antonius.

So those who believed blacks and women didn't have the right to vote were just as correct as those who lobbied for civil rights?

2+2 = 5

sabersix wrote:I have to say that the following line is the most pompus thing I have seen since the discussion of allowing Woman/Blacks to have the right to vote. And I think makes my point.
"Not every opinion is of equal value." or so say Antonius.

I stand by that proudly and can only hope you one day arise from your intellectual slumber. Let me give a concrete example of opinions of different value:

G Wiv's opinion on BBQ is more valuable than mine. He has tried many more styles than I have, has extensive experience making BBQ, and has thought through the process of preparing BBQ in sufficiently a careful way that he has been able to come up with a method for teaching people how to learn to make BBQ themselves, etc. I have eaten some BBQ, like it, but haven't tried a particularly broad sample of styles and have never tried to make it myself. I have not read (much) about it either.

So, yes, his opinion on BBQ should and does carry vastly more weight on this board (and well beyond) than mine. What problem do you have with that? Does that mean that I have no right to say something along the lines of "I tried BBQ Shack A and didn't like the texture of their X or the flavour of the Y; I personally prefer the food at BBQ Shack B." That's reasonable enough. But I would think twice before saying "The people at BBQ Shack A don't know what they're doing, even if people who know BBQ say otherwise. The best is the stuff I like."

Frankly, what is really pompous is the belief held by some, apparently including you, that your own opinion, however ignorant or knowledgeable, is just as valuable as that of someone who has spent a lot of time and effort learning about something.

A human's got to know its limitations.

Antonius

Typos fixed.

sabersix wrote:The Onion got me.... my bad.

Yea, I can easily see how that could happen.

Best thread ever.

sabersix wrote:I am getting off my horse, and will leave those windmills alone, but before I leave this thread, but not the board, I have to say that the following line is the most pompus thing I have seen since the discussion of allowing Woman/Blacks to have the right to vote. And I think makes my point.

"Not every opinion is of equal value." or so say Antonius.

NOTE: Written before I saw Antonius' response; overlaps considerably with his more succinct presentation of a similar argument.

But sabersix, surely you are being disingenuous, both here and in your support for an economic model of taste. Even you have to admit there are some areas where what Antonius wrote is true, and by that I am referring to EXPERT opinions. For example, if you wanted to know what was wrong with your non-functioning air conditioner, would you seek the opinion of an HVAC repairman or an obstetrician? Conversely, if you or your wife were having a baby (sorry, I don't know your gender, sabersix), whose opinion would you value more? And why? I think you know why, but I'll state it anyway. Because the expert's opinion, in his or her area of expertise, is more to be trusted than that of the non-expert. How you determine who is the expert, who is a better expert, etc. is something to leave for another day; but looking at the HVAC expert vs. OB example, you'll admit there are at least some areas where there clearly and objectively are those who are experts, and those who are not. And those experts' opinions are going to be of greater value than the non-experts' opinions on the same subject matter.

I think the same thing goes for barbecue experts and experts in other specialized areas of the world of food, although there is the issue of taste versus knowledge confusing things a bit. I'd definitely seek out the expert's opinions on (1) what IS "real" barbecue (historically, as practiced in this region or that, etc.), (2) how does one MAKE such and such a type of barbecue, and (3) within a particular type of barbecue, is THIS or THAT a good example (and why or why not). That said, I agree that even the world's greatest barbecue expert doesn't have the right to condemn a whole other genre of food. Although I would certainly respect the expert's opinion that, e.g., Gale Street Inn does not serve "real" barbecue, for x, y and z reasons, I wouldn't let that expert influence my preference for GSI's ribs, if I had that preference after trying the alternatives. Someone, somewhere must have done a complete taxonomy of taste and could better analyze these distinctions that I am merely hinting at here.

So, anyway, there are areas where every opinion has equal value, like "What is your favorite color?" or "Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla?" But if you want to know whether something is real barbecue, or good barbecue, then you would do well to consult an expert in the field, at least until you've sampled enough, perhaps cooked your own barbecue, and have become an expert yourself. That only makes sense. After becoming at least a middling expert, you may decide, from a position of reasonable authority grounded in experience, that in fact, Gale Street Inn's version was the best, all along. Some have predicted that anyone going through such an educational process would be weaned from GSI and "meat jello" in favor of "real" barbecue. I won't go that far. But I will repeat that the expert's opinion, whatever it may be, on what is the "best" barbecue, at least is founded in experience rather than mere habit or submittal to common prejudice.