Would I ever need to buy another cookbook if I bought this one?
>>21605768I dont own a single cookbook and i cook better than all of ck combined.
>>21605768who needs cookbooks when theres AI
>>21605768Idk, there's some really good dishes there and then there's some really vague dishes that a lot of people have written off because they have you carry out some antiquated, mostly unnecessary steps. Its a great reference, and if you have extra money its worth it to have a compiled list of French methods that you'll find in A LOT of dishes around the world. I personally just watch Foodwishes videos.
>>21605768You could've just bought this instead.
>>21605774You don't cook as good as Burger King. You probably think you do but you don't.
>>21605768Do you want to cook like an ambitious 50s-60s housewife? You're going to have to adapt a lot of the recipes in there for modern kitchens, but it is a pretty solid if dated collection of recipes. >>21605873Disappointing vegetable dishes.A good number of the preparations are inefficient to a modern experienced chef. We've streamlined a lot of his ideas today or gotten rid of redundancies.
>>21605924Who needs vegetable dishes? Just drown everything in sauce as he intended.
>>21605768is it really one book if it's split in two volumes?
>>21605774Jacques Pepin's technique bookMcGee on Food and CookingNever read Larousse Gastronomique but it sounds like a good reference. Maybe some other ones for specific kitchens/regions
>>21605774Doubtful.
>>21606000Larousse Gastronomique is good if you already know what you want to learn about but it's not really something you "read", it's a reference book - like you said. It's very dense.
