Top 3 Living Chefs

I was recently on a blog, and somehow I came across a thread where they were rating the top 50 chefs. I am curious who do you think are the top 3 living chefs. I know this is going to be hard to sum up only 3, and I choose living Chefs because its a little more relevant. Your top 3 do not have to be rated in order, and they can be retired.

After some time thinking, the top chefs on my list would be...
Paul Bocuse
Ferran Adria
Thomas Keller

Really tough to leave Joel Robuchon and Freddy Girardet of that list. But I think for me, Keller is my Favorite chef in the world, and is the only American Chef with 6 Michelin Stars and Bocuse and Adria are solid picks regardless.
Also being a Chicago native, it was hard to keep these chefs off, being I personally was so influenced by Charlie Trotter, Jean Banchet, and currently Grant Achatz and Laurent Gras at L2O.
For the record this is my list and your list can be any chefs that you choose. I am not asking for any debate on my list, and I am just curious what other people who love food and wine think the top 3 living chefs are.

Have a great day
Rick

I am not asking for any debate

Why spoil the fun?

More seriously, I don't think I've eaten widely enough at the restaurants of the top chefs to make an informed list. But if I were to go on the cultural impact of chefs as observed by food trends and food debates, your three sound pretty good.

I am not asking for any debate

Why spoil the fun?

More seriously, I don't think I've eaten widely enough at the restaurants of the top chefs to make an informed list. But if I were to go on the cultural impact of chefs as observed by food trends and food debates, your three sound pretty good.

Your Right, Only debatable if a Food Network Chef makes the List... lol

LOL this is such a subjective question, but interesting!
I wouldn't argue with 2 out of the 3 on your list, but do have reservations about Adria as I belong to a pretty large group of diners who don't acknowledge 'molecular gastronomy' as a "cuisine", so if you like we can award him the "mad scientist of the year trophy".
Top three is difficult, maybe impossible, so a few names I'd add to a "best" list would include Alain Ducasse, Jean georges and Daniel boulud...today anyway.

I belong to a pretty large group of diners who don't acknowledge 'molecular gastronomy' as a "cuisine", so if you like we can award him the "mad scientist of the year trophy"..

So you don't think molecular gastronomy is its own branch of cuisine or you don't think it is cuisine at all? If it's the former I don't see how that takes him out of the running for top living chef and the latter seems pretty hard to defend since people eat his food.

I belong to a pretty large group of diners who don't acknowledge 'molecular gastronomy' as a "cuisine", so if you like we can award him the "mad scientist of the year trophy"..

So you don't think molecular gastronomy is its own branch of cuisine or you don't think it is cuisine at all? If it's the former I don't see how that takes him out of the running for top living chef and the latter seems pretty hard to defend since people eat his food.

From my perspective Adria has pushed food into a realm never before seen, and most of his food is not necessarily Molecular, He just constructs food in a amazingly unique way, that many Chef's Including Paul Bocuse, have considered him to be the Greatest Chef of his era. Thats a big compliment coming from Bocuse. Not to mention the 5 year to lifetime wait to eat in his restaurant, and the influence he has provided to his art. As a side note his most influential cookbook is Escoffier Cookbook and guide to the fine art of cookery. Pretty Ironic, at least I think so.

[Jenise]

As a side note his most influential cookbook is Escoffier Cookbook and guide to the fine art of cookery. Pretty Ironic, at least I think so.

But maybe you should rethink that. True story: I have a modernist painting by an artist I once had the opportunity to later visit in her home. She showed me some past works, several of which were classic landscapes. I expressed surprise that she could paint in a manner that was almost photo-real. And she told me something that I've been able to apply to a lot of things since, including this discussion of Adria, that no true artist can improvise without acquiring some mastery of classic methods first. "This is how you know it's not an accident," she said. I think the same reasoning applies here.

And by the way I agree with you re Adria, from everything I've had the pleasure to read. No matter what I think of molecular gastronomy, Adria has clearly not only upped the game he's revolutionized it. 100 years from now they'll be looking back on him the way we look back on Escoffier now.

From everything I've read and seen of Adria's food, I'd have to eat some of it to determine whether he'd belong on my top 3 list or not. His work is so different that I can't make any kind of judgment as it stands now. He certainly belongs on the list just based on sheer creativity, but the more important thing for me is whether I'd like his food or not. At this point, I don't have the experience to know.

I'd love to get the chance, though.

I belong to a pretty large group of diners who don't acknowledge 'molecular gastronomy' as a "cuisine", so if you like we can award him the "mad scientist of the year trophy"..

So you don't think molecular gastronomy is its own branch of cuisine or you don't think it is cuisine at all? If it's the former I don't see how that takes him out of the running for top living chef and the latter seems pretty hard to defend since people eat his food.

LOL rahsaan, jeez, getting slapped down for expressing "my" opinion, and so pedantically put...
Allow me to respond, and no I won't change your mind or you'll change mine.
"Don't think molecular gastronomy (MG) is its own branch of cuisine"
No I don't, a method of preparing food, yes, cuisine, no.
Just a thought but would you consider cannibalism its own branch of cuisine...
"Don't think it's cuisine at all".
Santi Santamaria, one of Adria's peers, a Spanish chef with 5 or 6 Michelin stars, doesn't think so, not an exclusive opinion among 'known' chefs.
And BTW, I've paid a lot of money to try MG 3 times, the last occurrence at a very expensive restaurant here in L.A. called Bastide, now closed for lack of customers.
"Don't see how that takes him out of the running for top living chef"...."People eat his food".
No prob, technically of course he's in that category, alive, a qualified chef at the top of his particular game and certainly people eat what he serves.
But if that last criterion is the benchmark, then certainly a frequent target for condemnation here, Rachael Ray is in that category, along with Mario, emeril, ramsay etc. etc.
Isn't it interesting that when people talk about El Bulli being open only 6 months as Adria spends the rest of the year constructing or deconstructing his latest concoctions, he's always referred to as being in his 'workshop' or laboratory', never his 'kitchen'.
Maybe liquid nitrogen and the foam de jour does it for you, having tried them, I'll pass on further 'experiences'.
In a hundred years, will Adria be seen as the Watson & Crick of gastronomy, dunno as expect there's a very good chance I won't be around to find out! But would like to know what twists and turns cuisine will take a hundred years from now, oh...that is if there's anything left except cockroaches.

technically of course he's in that category, alive, a qualified chef at the top of his particular game and certainly people eat what he serves.
But if that last criterion is the benchmark, then certainly a frequent target for condemnation here, Rachael Ray is in that category, along with Mario, emeril, ramsay etc. etc.

I think those chefs, each in their own way (although I cringe more than a bit at calling Rachel Ray a chef), are excellent marketers. They produce food that people want to consume and that makes people happy. Each with their own individual flair. Of course Adria is an excellent marketer in his own right but more importantly he has changed the game of restaurant dining and of how people think about food, which earns him a ton of respect in my book.

Whether or not he will still be as famous in twenty years or one hundred years is irrelevant. (Especially since it is speculation and unknowable). You may not like his style and you may not want to eat his food but I don't think you can deny his influence? (Which has already lasted much longer than a 'jour')

And BTW, I've paid a lot of money to try MG 3 times, the last occurrence at a very expensive restaurant here in L.A. called Bastide, now closed for lack of customers.

What does this have to do with Adria?

Ok I am going to intervene, Adria is a chef and his food is avant -garde, New-Nouvelle or Contemporary Cuisine. He has been the Chef of el Bulli since 87, His motto is "creativity is not copying" so its very likely that you would never have a foam in el Bulli if you were to visit . To say what Ferran cooks is not Cuisine, is to then say Pierre Gagnaire is a dishwasher, and Michel Bras is a busboy. In 1997 el Bulli is awarded 3 Michelin stars. In 2002 el Bulli wins Best Restaurant in the World, Ferran would win this award in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. I do not see Emeril, or Rachael Ray even close on that list, so there can be no logical comparison. Mario's Babbo is number 90. I do believe that there are really bad imitations of his style, and they will not last. But el Bulli is booked for the next 20 years, and I do believe he will go down in culinary history as the Best Chef to ever walk this earth. To create new Technique in this day and age, when everything has been discovered, is incomprehensible. He is not only considered by many as the greatest living chef, he is by far the most influential, as in 2006, 60 gastronomy journalist from various countries would vote him number 1. I think I have supported my reasoning behind Ferran Adria being on that short list, and the reason his food is undeniably Cuisine.

Gagnaire would definitely be in my Top 3. No question. He is a genius.

Top of the head three....

Joel Robuchon
Guy Savoy
Paul Bocuse

And, on a list of 100, Adria woud be somewhere about number 102.

Best
Rogov

I guess that if we've proved nothing else, about Adria, fence-sitters need not apply...
Chef Rick and maybe Rahsaan think he's the greatest chef that ever lived, Rogov and I don't.
Rahsaan wanted to know what my reference to having dined in 3 restos featuring molecular cooking and the last one mentioned, closed, had to do with Adria. Sorry, guess I should have expanded the statement to make it less obscure. Rightly or wrongly, Adria is associated with molecular cooking, many say the progenitor. I tried 3 of these places featuring this type of cooking, all claiming to be in the 'style' of Adria and unable to sustain a customer base for that genre of cooking. Conclusion; that Adria is Adria, that apart from El Bulli, the Fat Duck and a handful of others, molecular cooking or whatever label you'd like to pin on it, doesn't appeal to the general dining public.
I found an interesting quote from Adria on the subject, "The ideal customer doesn't come to El Bulli to eat, but to have an experience".
Guess I'm just old-fashioned enough to believe that restaurants are where to go for eating, even dining.

People such as Lucullus and Escoffier will be remembered with awe so long as people value fine dining.
People such as Adria, and restaurant such as El Bulli and The Fat Duck if remembered at all a century from now, will be little more than lightly amusing footnotes.
Thus spoke not Zarathustra but Rogov.

Rahsaan wanted to know what my reference to having dined in 3 restos featuring molecular cooking and the last one mentioned, closed, had to do with Adria. Sorry, guess I should have expanded the statement to make it less obscure. Rightly or wrongly, Adria is associated with molecular cooking, many say the progenitor. I tried 3 of these places featuring this type of cooking, all claiming to be in the 'style' of Adria and unable to sustain a customer base for that genre of cooking. Conclusion; that Adria is Adria, that apart from El Bulli, the Fat Duck and a handful of others, molecular cooking or whatever label you'd like to pin on it, doesn't appeal to the general dining public..

MG may or may not appeal to the general dining public but I'm not sure how you could make that conclusion based on the experience of one man.

I understand that you don't like MG and I have no problem with that. But I find it rather misguided to judge a chef (Adria) based on other chefs who are supposedly cooking in the same style.

I don't want to come off as a huge Adria/MG booster because I've never eaten in El Bulli and don't have any views on what will be remembered in 100 years. It's clear that he has a lot of influence now and I find it amusing that others speak so firmly (either way) about posterity. Cable talk shows would be proud of such bluster!

Rahasan, Hi.....


Not too long ago several Israeli chefs made their way to both El Bulli and The Fat Duck in order to study and master this special form of gastronomy. Following is the review of the meals I later ate with them and that pretty much sums up my feelings about molecular gastronomy.
=====

From the Spain's Costa Brava to London and New York, the latest craze in dining out is searching out those chefs who have chosen to go the route of molecular gastronomy - the manipulation of foodstuffs in places that resemble laboratories more than they do kitchens and in which the goal is to reduce ingredients to their most vital and basic molecular ingredients before recombining them in forms that we are told is edible

Brillat-Savarin, the philosopher of French food said, that "the discovery of a new dish does more for human happiness than the discovery of a star." After sampling some of the new dishes devised by this new wave of chefs one cannot wonder if Brillat-Savarin would be tossing and turning rather uncomfortably in his grave. It is not so much that these dishes are created using naturally derived ingredients such as benzyl trans-2-methylbutenate and xanthorands. Nor is it especially offensive that these dishes rely on patented tinned products named algin, calcin, citros, gluco and kappa. What is most offensive is that these dishes are so far in texture and flavor from the original ingredients that went into them that one wonders not only what one is eating but more logically, why.

Because we Israelis never lag too far behind Europe and the United States, molecular gastronomy is now making its inroads locally and I recently sampled this fare at two restaurants. Before I begin to deconstruct my meals as the chefs in these restaurants did the dishes that made there way to my stomach, let me say that when chefs Noam Dekkers and Omer Zarnitsky of Kfar Saba's Barcarola and Moshe Aviv of Tel Aviv's Messa do their own often creative cuisine, they do just fine. When it comes to what they do with molecular cuisine, however, I have some very serious questions.

Barcarola

The degustation meal on which I dined at Barcarola opened with a vodka martini served with what was said to be and surely looked like a "Syrian olive". The vodka, which I saw poured directly from the bottle was fine but the olive turned out to be one that had been molecularly manipulated, encapsulated in a condom like enclosure and, when pierced in the mouth tasted like a mushy, half-cooked egg yolk. From here it was on a first course of a single oyster that had been treated to a beet jelly, the bright red color of the beet being the only sign that this concoction had once come from nature, the jelly itself tasting neither like jelly nor beets but having the distinct aroma of rose petals and flavor of Scotch whiskey. The oyster was then topped with a foam of sea water, that so light in texture that as it dissolved on the tongue it left nothing but the flavor of what felt like magically sweetened salt.

The next course I sampled was of a seafood salad in which I was at first relieved to note that the shrimps and calamari on my dish looked like, smelled like and even tasted like real shrimps and calamari. What harmed the dish beyond repair in my estimation was a molecularly modified bright purple herb vinaigrette whose bitter flavors lingered far too long on the palate. It seemed in part that chefs involved in this new style of cookery have forgotten the age-old rule known by all chefs "Don't serve purple food". That rule has good logic, the color purple in food tending to make most observers just a bit nauseous.

The seared scallop in my next sampling was really and truly a scallop and the crab butter served with that was fine. I could not help but sigh though in realizing that neither the accompanying jelly of bacon nor the fire-engine red "beet air" foam on my plate had no discernible flavors whatever. The final course offered was of several slices of beef flank steak, those topped with another condom-like sphere filled with what was said to be a red wine sauce but had a taste far more akin to chicken liver than any wine I have ever sampled. The beef was also served with a puree and no matter how I tried, I could not figure out whether that had been made from some alchemical blend of potatoes, beef marrow, parsley root or some odd combination of all three.

Messa

At Messa I accepted an invitation to taste the chef's venture into molecular gastronomy and here as well my degustation meal opened with a mini-cocktail, this one called "Naughty Chocolate" for the good reason that the major ingredients in the drink were chocolate in a liquid form that tasted like a pear and a fresh fruit salad topped by a foam of hot gin. I did not mind that the foam was hot. I did mind that it had the consistency of curdled milk. From here it was on to a single molecular olive, another condom-like enclosed concoction that at least this time had the good grace to taste like an olive albeit in a semi-liquid form, that set on a tasty herbed crouton.

I continued with a trio of creations based on goose liver. The first of these was an airy concoction served with molecularly manipulated bits of berries in which the liver tasted like an olive and the berries seemed to have taken on a distinct kinship to dried peas. The second was of "goose liver candies", those that tasted nothing at all like liver but had a relationship to dried apricots; and the third of two pralines of goose liver that tasted more like chocolate chip cookies than anything else that came to mind. By this time I was quite glad that my companion and I had been sipping generously of the good 2005 Merlot of the Bravdo winery.

Turning to the sea, a platter appeared with three more offerings – the first of shrimps (real shrimps, I must say) those coated with yojo. That would have been fine but the shrimps were set on a concoction called "sea sand", and indeed this laboratory created concoction did grate in the teeth as might sand on the beach. The second offering was of a smoked salmon ravioli with one gel of wassabi and, powdered nuri seaweed and another a gel of cucumbers. Put all together I could not help but make the comparison to a sandwich made with soggy bread and a collection of ingredients with colors that ran from sky blue to sea green and flavors from too salty to even more salty than that. The third sea offering was a sashimi of tuna, that with a puree of pears and wassabi and something called "soya caviar", all topped with a foam of ginger, that having no flavor whatsoever.

There were three more courses yet to come, the first a small medallion of fillet steak that stood on its own on the plate and proved delicious. Surrounding the beef was two more molecular creations – in this case a sorbet of corn that was unusual in that it was not frozen and a slice of onion filled with a beef-based airy foam. To give credit where credit is due, the onion tasted like an onion. My next venture was into shrimps coated with kadaif pastry and those were fine but again, alongside that a caramelized tomato on a stick, the caramel crust so thick, firm and sticky that it clung uncomfortably to the teeth and the roof of the mouth. The final offering was of a baby lamb chop, that inserted into a cocktail glass containing what I was told was a lemon fondu, and those accompanied by a whole egg shell filled with what proved the highlight of the meal – a liquid brulee of truffles that was truly magnificent. Three small espresso coffees, not at all molecularly manipulated closed out the meal.

One of the questions that the critics must ask themselves when evaluating molecular gastronomy is whether they are being too bound by tradition and thus automatically rejecting what is "new". In my own case, I have no objections at all to new flavors, new textures or new combinations, no matter how they challenge the senses so long as they are tasty and satisfying. I do however, wonder why I have to dine on creations that are far from gastronomical treats. That such methods may eventually play a role in the future prevention of starvation on the planet seems clear. It is equally obvious, however, that this is not what great chefs or devoted gourmands have envisioned over the millennia.

Several of these dishes will make their way into the regular menus of both Barcarola and Messa. Should one want to dine entirely as I did on the molecular degustation dinner, reservations must be made at least two weeks in advance and one should count on spending about NIS 300 per person for the privilege.

There remains one final question. Is it worth trying? My answer – yes but once and once only, for although the phenomenon is interesting it may be nothing more than a chemical show to cater to the wealthy among us and to those whose palates are so jaded that what is new must, by definition, be good. Molecular gastronomy may be the post-modern joke par excellence of the still young 21st century. My palate, my stomach and I will wait for surely this too shall pass.

Barcarola: Rehov Atir Yeda 13, in the new Industrial Area of Kfar Saba. Open daily 12:00-01:00. Tel 09 7669606.

Messa: Rehov HaArba'a 19, Tel Aviv. Open daily 12:30-15:30 and 19:00-23:30. Tel (03) 6856859

Daniel, ROTFL!

I have done a limited amount of reading on MG, and I am still trying to understand it. Is all cooking molecular gastronomy? When we cook (poach, roast, saute etc.), we cause molecular transformations (reactions, denaturations e.g.) We use gelling agents to create aspics or preserves, or whisk oil and water with emulsifiers like egg yolks to create sauces or vinaigrettes. We use pot distillations to create spirits. The MG techniques that I read about seem more of a continuum of previously used approaches than true novelty, but I am sure that is just a lack of understanding on my part.

Greg, Hi....

In one aspect, all cooking and all wine and spirits making is nothing more than "spoiling" the original product (be that a steak, sweet cream, grapes or various grains. The goal of cooking, however, has always been to provide foods that are more edible and more appealing in some way than in their original form. An uncooked pear, for example, can be magnificent but so for that matter can be an apple that has been poached in white wine and some combination of cinnamon and/or vanilla. Much the same is true in the transformation of a grape into a wine.

On the other hand, there are many foods that we would not care to eat raw. I think for example of goose liver. True, one can make a carpaccio of raw goose liver as one can make a seviche of the right fish when combined with other ingredients and a sauce. In general, however, we do prefer the liver and the on our table to be cooked. In this comes the difference between simply eating and dining, the first of which is done for survival, the second for a combination of pleasures (aesthetic, sensual, psychological and even sexual).

The point at which true cuisine and molecular gastronomy part company is that point at which it becomes impossible to cook without man-made chemical compounds, the purpose of which is primarily to so change the texture, aroma and flavor of the things on which we are dining so that they become, for all practical purposes unrecognizable.

In my own case (an obviously biased one, I freely admit), I would rather do survival training in the forests or jungles of Brazil than dine on molecular cuisine. At least during survival training one can find fruits, vegetables, roots, meat and fish that look like and taste like what they are. And of course one can always find a way to ferment the juice of either a fruit or vegetable to make something alcoholic to drink.

When I wrote the article several posts above, my editor asked if I really had to compare some of those sauces to being contained in "condoms". I told her that that was precisely what they made me think of - not balloons, not teaspoons, and certainly not sauces that I would want to eat.

Best
Rogov

I can't argue with Rogov's experience in those two Israeli restaurants and I can see why they left a bad taste in his mouth.

However, just because those two chefs went to learn from Adria doesn't mean you can necessarily judge Adria himself based on their food. Sure, you can begin to form judgements about MG in general and I've already stated that I have no problem with that assessment. But judging the original based on the apprentice is a pretty dubious endeavor and all sorts of historical false paths could be named based on that strategy.

In addition, I think we may be talking somewhat at cross purposes because the fact that some people are so vehemently opposed to MG does not necessarily negate the fact that Adria may be one of the top handful of living chefs. If we focus on influence. If you define it based on the quantity of satisfied bellies then maybe not.

But the very fact that Adria has spawned so many imitators and influenced menus all over the world in ways large and small surely speaks to the 'importance' of his influence. Just because many of those imitators are not producing good stuff does not minimize the importance of his core contributions. To make a somewhat-hackneyed historical reference, we haven't consigned the French revolution to a minor historical footnote just because there were excesses during the Reign of Terror.

Rahsaan, Hi...

Perhaps I did not mention that I have dined at both El Bulli and at The Fat Duck (the first three times, the second only twice). I have also dined at several of the molecular palaces in New York City.

The opening line from my review of El Bulli was: "I have dined with the Frankenstein monster"

The closing line from that review: "Ask not for whom the molecular bell tolls. The bell tolls not for thee or for me. The bell tolls entirely for the pleasure of Ferran Adrià"

Best
Rogov

Thanks for taking your time to provide an explanation. It makes sense to me that things prepared to lose all recognition and more importantly appeal at the table, is a loss not a gain. I sure wouldn't want to eat any of the MG dishes you described. I guess I wonder whether the line that separates the two is a hard one. I think of transglutaminase, or meat glue, an enzyme that stitches proteins together vs. rennet, a mixture of enzymes, which coagulates protein to produce cheese. Certainly cheese doesn't resemble the original natural product milk, but it sure does appeal to me. The fact that enzymes are added to the milk to make that happen doesn't put me off eating cheese. I have never had a dish made with transglutaminase, but would consider trying it. Or ground meats stuffed in "condoms" to produce the hot dogs you so delightfully described in a separate post, that no longer resemble the original meats. My only personal venture into MG techniques is using an immersion circulator. Not sure why it is MG, but it is often referred to that way (seems like very controlled poaching to me), but I have enjoyed its ability to poach lobster tails in butter to a perfect texture that I rarely achieve in higher temperature approaches. Do you think that any of the new MG techniques could produce something worthy of the table? Do you separate the techniques from the artificial "chemicals" used in MG preparations?

Perhaps I did not mention that I have dined at both El Bulli and at The Fat Duck (the first three times, the second only twice). I have also dined at several of the molecular palaces in New York City.

Ok. Fair enough. I wish I could say the same!