I'm just curious since a lot of people enjoy Max's videos. Do you enjoy the actual cooking as much as the historical part? Cause IDK, I love the channel, but I think I'm ready for "Food History...
I'm just curious since a lot of people enjoy Max's videos. Do you enjoy the actual cooking as much as the historical part? Cause IDK, I love the channel, but I think I'm ready for "Food History with Max Miller". By all means talk about the food, but I'm not really doing Napoleon's last meal in my kitchen. Although some processes are definitely interesting - - garum comes to mind - - some times I find myself wanting to skip that bit.
Maybe I just care more about history than cooking.
I mean, his whole channel is (someone) researches a subject that he presents. He also talks through the recipe, and how to cook it, does that, and then tastes while giving a reaction. The good: he...
Exemplary
I mean, his whole channel is (someone) researches a subject that he presents. He also talks through the recipe, and how to cook it, does that, and then tastes while giving a reaction.
The good: he has a great film setup, and a great camera presence. Lots of people who want to be on camera actually aren't good at it, don't have appealing and charming camera presence or speaking presence; he has both and knows how to use them well. So it's easy to listen to him. He also has his shtick and sticks to it, which I like, because it's not exactly uncommon to find people who have a shtick only to abandon it. Especially after they get views and start chasing the algorithm. I hate that shit.
Him eating the food I have no interest in. His comments about the food don't seem to resonate with me. He doesn't seem to have interesting things (IMO) to say about the tasting. I don't like watching him sit there chewing, so I just end his videos early. There's a "trick" or "knack" to being able to eat on camera, and then have something interesting to say about a purely subjective subject (eating; everyone's taste is different) that he doesn't seem to have for me. Which isn't a slam, it's just how it is.
I would like more about cooking methods, and period ingredients. Like, random off the top of my head example (bad example probably), modern grain is factory processed so its pulverized and uniform in modern flour. Old style flour (think 1800s at the latest) could (presumably) tend to be coarser, or less uniform, since it was more often ground locally or poorly. That kind of thing. Which would, one assumes, have an impact on how chefs (anyone who cooks) might approach it, think of it, prepare or use it in recipes, and so on.
The food part is the interesting part to me. Specifically, the history of the food. I'm not going to dig through his channel to find specific examples, but he has a tendency to drift into generic history rather than dialing specifically into food history. Into why the food evolved the way it did and so on. Instead, he'll bring up stuff like "such and such place was founded by whoever or found by whoever, and there were social customs of these people who invented this dish that meant (insert shocking-to-modern-mores) customs were prevalent."
Frankly I don't care about the generic history stuff. I want to hear specifically about the food. Why the people evolved the dish, why they evolved the cooking method. I care less about "the tribe ate it before battle to boost courage" or whatever. I care about "this is why they cooked it as they did." When he starts covering regular history rather than food stuff, it feels like filler. His channel's supposed to be food focused IMO.
Actually, better example. I remember he's done some Titanic episodes. And IIRC he went a lot into Titanic history, and not into "this is what the chefs aboard Titanic had to work with, how long they had to cook, where they stored their food", and so on. Food specific things to Titanic would be what I'd want to hear about from a "what they ate aboard ship" presentation. I would not be interested in hearing how big the ship was, when it launched, how many died in the sinking, and so on. I'd want to hear about the food, and the cooking of the food. Since he's telling me it's a food channel.
The cooking part I kind of like, but he goes wishy-washy with disclaimers and stuff that kind of get annoying sometimes and I find that irritating. He also seems extremely eager to take the easy route for any recipe and skip anything that isn't done in a modern way. Or he'll say "they used to do this like (so), but I'm doing it in the oven because reasons."
It'd be more interesting if he did more period techniques. Like, he did barbecue recently, but pulled out a Weber grill with briquettes. I can give him a pass on the Weber, since it might be semi-pedantic to expect him to knock up a 1800s period replacement. But the briquettes instead of wood and wood chips and wood smoking techniques really rubbed me the wrong way. It felt like "I'm on a schedule, and am really just in this to have a video to show" rather than "I'm genuinely interested in this and want to learn and explore this food/dish."
He even specifically complained about "wow, I had no idea it would take as long as it did" in that video. Which really felt like "this is screwing up my production schedule" and not at all like a "this is what to expect when cooking barbecue."
Basically, he's a watchable guy and seems polite, but he's effectively just the food version of the "Today I Found Out" guy. That guy has I don't even know how many channels, and is simply the voice/face for all of them. Because he has that camera/speaking presence utterly dialed in, so as long as he has a script to read from and a editing team to throw in some stock photos and the odd piece of video gathered online in an easy manner he's off and running.
Max is the same way; his channel smacks of "I just want the videos each week, please watch." He's easy to watch, but I often feel like he's using me for the views, and less like he genuinely wants to share what he's learned with me. The TIFO guy hits me the same way; too much polish and filler feeling and not enough "I'm genuinely into this".
Which isn't exactly a good thing, but it's not exactly bad either. Basically, Max and the TIFO guy (amongst others) would have been right at home working for one of the Subject Named cable channels of the 90s and 00s, but instead they do it indie on Youtube. I'd prefer more passion and genuine interest, and less "hi-ho, hi-ho, off to record a video we go."
I've definitely made some of his recipes in the past - some were excellent (the original Fettuccine Alfredo recipe is amazing) but mostly do watch for more of the "Max's Food History Story Time"
I've definitely made some of his recipes in the past - some were excellent (the original Fettuccine Alfredo recipe is amazing) but mostly do watch for more of the "Max's Food History Story Time"
I'm not making any of the things but I do like the process of having to interpret and adapt old recipes that aren't always the clearest out of their context or whose ingredients are no longer...
I'm not making any of the things but I do like the process of having to interpret and adapt old recipes that aren't always the clearest out of their context or whose ingredients are no longer available. It gives some practicality to the history lecture.
I like to see how things taste to a modern palette, particularly things like Garum that are difficult to try. I agree that the history lesson is the best part, but I like the format as is.
I like to see how things taste to a modern palette, particularly things like Garum that are difficult to try. I agree that the history lesson is the best part, but I like the format as is.
I've made some of his things, and I feel like centering the food history around the actual dish adds a very human element to the experience. It's not just talking about frontier living, it's...
I've made some of his things, and I feel like centering the food history around the actual dish adds a very human element to the experience. It's not just talking about frontier living, it's talking about it in the context of someone's day to day experience in a context we all share, and could share at home: the thing they ate.
My mother used to tell me stories of how cheaply my grandfather used to buy things. The part in the video about the food being complimentary if you drank reminded me of that. My mother told me my...
My mother used to tell me stories of how cheaply my grandfather used to buy things. The part in the video about the food being complimentary if you drank reminded me of that. My mother told me my grandfather would get sandwiches for free with the beer he bought.
I'm just curious since a lot of people enjoy Max's videos. Do you enjoy the actual cooking as much as the historical part? Cause IDK, I love the channel, but I think I'm ready for "Food History with Max Miller". By all means talk about the food, but I'm not really doing Napoleon's last meal in my kitchen. Although some processes are definitely interesting - - garum comes to mind - - some times I find myself wanting to skip that bit.
Maybe I just care more about history than cooking.
What you guys think?
I mean, his whole channel is (someone) researches a subject that he presents. He also talks through the recipe, and how to cook it, does that, and then tastes while giving a reaction.
The good: he has a great film setup, and a great camera presence. Lots of people who want to be on camera actually aren't good at it, don't have appealing and charming camera presence or speaking presence; he has both and knows how to use them well. So it's easy to listen to him. He also has his shtick and sticks to it, which I like, because it's not exactly uncommon to find people who have a shtick only to abandon it. Especially after they get views and start chasing the algorithm. I hate that shit.
Him eating the food I have no interest in. His comments about the food don't seem to resonate with me. He doesn't seem to have interesting things (IMO) to say about the tasting. I don't like watching him sit there chewing, so I just end his videos early. There's a "trick" or "knack" to being able to eat on camera, and then have something interesting to say about a purely subjective subject (eating; everyone's taste is different) that he doesn't seem to have for me. Which isn't a slam, it's just how it is.
I would like more about cooking methods, and period ingredients. Like, random off the top of my head example (bad example probably), modern grain is factory processed so its pulverized and uniform in modern flour. Old style flour (think 1800s at the latest) could (presumably) tend to be coarser, or less uniform, since it was more often ground locally or poorly. That kind of thing. Which would, one assumes, have an impact on how chefs (anyone who cooks) might approach it, think of it, prepare or use it in recipes, and so on.
The food part is the interesting part to me. Specifically, the history of the food. I'm not going to dig through his channel to find specific examples, but he has a tendency to drift into generic history rather than dialing specifically into food history. Into why the food evolved the way it did and so on. Instead, he'll bring up stuff like "such and such place was founded by whoever or found by whoever, and there were social customs of these people who invented this dish that meant (insert shocking-to-modern-mores) customs were prevalent."
Frankly I don't care about the generic history stuff. I want to hear specifically about the food. Why the people evolved the dish, why they evolved the cooking method. I care less about "the tribe ate it before battle to boost courage" or whatever. I care about "this is why they cooked it as they did." When he starts covering regular history rather than food stuff, it feels like filler. His channel's supposed to be food focused IMO.
Actually, better example. I remember he's done some Titanic episodes. And IIRC he went a lot into Titanic history, and not into "this is what the chefs aboard Titanic had to work with, how long they had to cook, where they stored their food", and so on. Food specific things to Titanic would be what I'd want to hear about from a "what they ate aboard ship" presentation. I would not be interested in hearing how big the ship was, when it launched, how many died in the sinking, and so on. I'd want to hear about the food, and the cooking of the food. Since he's telling me it's a food channel.
The cooking part I kind of like, but he goes wishy-washy with disclaimers and stuff that kind of get annoying sometimes and I find that irritating. He also seems extremely eager to take the easy route for any recipe and skip anything that isn't done in a modern way. Or he'll say "they used to do this like (so), but I'm doing it in the oven because reasons."
It'd be more interesting if he did more period techniques. Like, he did barbecue recently, but pulled out a Weber grill with briquettes. I can give him a pass on the Weber, since it might be semi-pedantic to expect him to knock up a 1800s period replacement. But the briquettes instead of wood and wood chips and wood smoking techniques really rubbed me the wrong way. It felt like "I'm on a schedule, and am really just in this to have a video to show" rather than "I'm genuinely interested in this and want to learn and explore this food/dish."
He even specifically complained about "wow, I had no idea it would take as long as it did" in that video. Which really felt like "this is screwing up my production schedule" and not at all like a "this is what to expect when cooking barbecue."
Basically, he's a watchable guy and seems polite, but he's effectively just the food version of the "Today I Found Out" guy. That guy has I don't even know how many channels, and is simply the voice/face for all of them. Because he has that camera/speaking presence utterly dialed in, so as long as he has a script to read from and a editing team to throw in some stock photos and the odd piece of video gathered online in an easy manner he's off and running.
Max is the same way; his channel smacks of "I just want the videos each week, please watch." He's easy to watch, but I often feel like he's using me for the views, and less like he genuinely wants to share what he's learned with me. The TIFO guy hits me the same way; too much polish and filler feeling and not enough "I'm genuinely into this".
Which isn't exactly a good thing, but it's not exactly bad either. Basically, Max and the TIFO guy (amongst others) would have been right at home working for one of the Subject Named cable channels of the 90s and 00s, but instead they do it indie on Youtube. I'd prefer more passion and genuine interest, and less "hi-ho, hi-ho, off to record a video we go."
I've definitely made some of his recipes in the past - some were excellent (the original Fettuccine Alfredo recipe is amazing) but mostly do watch for more of the "Max's Food History Story Time"
I'm not making any of the things but I do like the process of having to interpret and adapt old recipes that aren't always the clearest out of their context or whose ingredients are no longer available. It gives some practicality to the history lecture.
I like to see how things taste to a modern palette, particularly things like Garum that are difficult to try. I agree that the history lesson is the best part, but I like the format as is.
I've made some of his things, and I feel like centering the food history around the actual dish adds a very human element to the experience. It's not just talking about frontier living, it's talking about it in the context of someone's day to day experience in a context we all share, and could share at home: the thing they ate.
My mother used to tell me stories of how cheaply my grandfather used to buy things. The part in the video about the food being complimentary if you drank reminded me of that. My mother told me my grandfather would get sandwiches for free with the beer he bought.