Precooking? (was Re: SC - questions/kinda long, sorry)

[Nick Sasso]

> That is why we emphasize trials of the recipes.
> ("Fish Gely" is unusual, but not unknown in several modern cuisines.)
> But presentation and complimentary flavors is all important.
> Designing a menu, whithout knowing in advance what these recipes
> actually TASTE like is always a bad idea.
> 
> Once again, there is no "bad" food, but cooks that prepare food "badly".
> I think the error lies more in the fault of those cooks trying poorly
> interpreted recipes, put together in a very unprepared or haphazard
> fashion, just because they were "period". And not having pretrials of
> new recipes is just not acceptable in my book!

I must admit here that I do very little if any pre-cooking/testing of
dishes for my menus.  I have had a phenomenal run of success in my
results along the way.  I fully expect to have a failure somewhere along
the line, but not many.  I spend much time looking at primary source
recipes, comparing to redactions, and other similar recipes.  I have
that uncommon mindset that can look at a set of ingredients and
formulate a basic impression of the taste/texture that could come out of
it.  If I cannot get that picture, I don't use it without pretesting.

I don't imagine in my personal little picture of medieval life that
cooks in the Lord's kitchen would do too terrible much precooking for
the same reason I don't . . . economy.  I imagine they would cautiously
prepare the dish, tasting frequently and reconsidering the procedures at
each stage until they came up with a final product that was successful. 
I have, on occasion, prepared a dish for a small dinner for the first
time, and then later used it for a historical feeding at some event or
other, but I see that differently.

I'm not adamantly opposed to it, just think that a few cooks together
with skill and knowledge could assemble a virtual reality of the dish
and menu with some success without the absolute need to precook every
new recipe.