I’ve never been to Japan, but I’ve eaten a lot of sushi here in the U.S., and I often wonder how close it is to “the real thing.” Especially in the case of the odd stuff like Philadelphia Rolls, California Rolls, etc.
Are these things back-imported to Japan? Would the Japanese be appalled by cream cheese in a Maki roll? I can’t imagine that that’s an authentic recipe re-branded with an American name.
What about those “super-dragon/pheonix rolls” or whatever that combine 5 or 6 types of fish with a giant tempura battered prawn sticking out?
I had a Donkey Kong roll once: tempura battered banana on top of a salmon/avocado roll, with wasabi mayo. It was good, but odd. Would that be seen as sacrilege in Japan?
I have written quite a bit about that form of sushi – and I live in Japantown in San Francisco.
Very generally speaking, those Americanized rolls like Philadelphia rolls are more available here in California at restaurants that are owned and operated by Koreans. In fact, the best offerings are well known to be Korean-owned!
There are a handful of sushi restaurants here in San Francisco which now incorporate that style of roll because they are so popular and I have spoken with Japanese chefs who prefer to NOT create them, but they do to increase their bottom line.
I can’t comment on how or if they exist in Japan proper.
Pretty close, though I’ve only occasionally seen a California roll and never a Philadelphia roll. In fact, quite a bit of sushi in Japan isn’t in roll form at all. Depending on where you go (and in particular, the 100 yen sushi places where it comes around on a mini-conveyor belt), sushi is nothing more than a piece of fish/eel/octopus/squid/etc. on top of a clump of rice, like this.
Here is the website for Gonpachi, a sushi place in the Shibuya area of Tokyo that has a menu in both Japanese and English. It’s a little more new wave than in many sushi restaurants, but not terribly so.
That’s what I always thought sushi was, Camus. I didn’t learn about the rolls until much later. Then again, the only sushi I like is made with cooked fish. (And yes, it’s still a type of sushi.)
That’s only one type of sushi, though. Perhaps *nigiri *be more prevalent because it’s quick to make and relatively simple.
Looks to me like there’s a fair number of *maki *available. They’ve even incorporated the California roll and dragon roll. I’ve never been to Japan, but in the sushi places I’ve been to in the U.S., there’s a huge nigiri selection along with a wider variety of maki.
They don’t have elaborate rolls over there such as Dave’s Super Crunch Roll or Funky Lobster, I don’t even remember seeing a Philadelphia roll. The only one I’ve seen over there is the California roll which is pretty basic and all of the ingredients can be found in Japan already. Other than that, sushi and rolls are still very simple and basic, people take pride on the balance and harmony created from just a couple of ingredients as opposed to in America where complicated rolls are crammed with as many complimenting flavors as seemingly possible.
I don’t know about Japan, but here in L.A. all the “serious” sushi places I know (run by Japanese, catering to a Japanese clientele, proud of the quality of their food) wouldn’t be caught dead serving stuff like that. About as far as they’ll go is California rolls and spicy tuna rolls, and some places won’t even do that.
Yeah, we have nigiri in the U.S. as well, but that doesn’t seem to get as … “embelished?” as the maki.
Thanks for the info everyone… Pretty much as I’d expected. But I’m still going to enjoy my Philly rolls, authentic or not. They are as yummy as they are bizarre.
Well… I wouldn’t disagree that it’s authentic Westernized sushi, I guess…
Authentic isn’t a value statement. I like Americanized Chinese food as much or more than the stuff I’ve eaten in China. But I wouldn’t claim that it’s authentic.
I recently talked to a Japanese gentleman about this very subject. What he said was that in most cases, what is put on top or inside the sushi is identical no matter where you get it (and in some cases, higher quality than what you could get in Japan.) However, the difference is that in Japan they use a special rice only for sushi. The rice, not the trappings, is what makes Japanese sushi better than other places.
But then again, it could also just be ethnic arrogance. All Japanese I have met have said Japanese sushi “tastes better” (except for this one person, no one could articulate why) but no non-Japanese I have ever met could taste the difference.
Well, I would say it is the preparation of the rice is what makes it better. Many claim pizza from Boston or New York tastes better because of the water, I would argue that Japanese rice would taste different as well, quite simply because of the variable of water. (I knew a pizza company in California that shipped WATER from Boston for the making of their dough!)
As far as I know, there is no special rice for sushi. The rice used for sushi is the same kind used by most Japanese families for their everyday meals. Maybe he meant that Japanese rice is different from “American” rice (whatever he thinks that is)?
But Japanese rice is also produced in the US, and widely available in Asian markets in the US. Not just any short-grain rice, but specific Japanese varieties such as Koshihikari, Akitakomachi, etc. I’m Japanese, and personally I can’t tell the difference between these and the same varieties produced in Japan.
The difference to me, is that sushi is an art in Japan. It takes years of apprenticeship before you would open a restaurant of your own. The type of rice, the quality of Mirin, the way the rice is prepared, how the rice is made into balls, the way the fish is cut, and a bunch of other factors make it special. Think of it like barbecue. Anyone can throw some ribs on a grill and smother it with sauce, but real (what ever that means) barbecue takes a lot of care and skill.
It’s disheartening to talk with someone who says they really like sushi and then find out that all they like are rolls that they smother in soy sauce and wasabi.
