Also, western “Sushi” is not the same thing as Japanese Sushi.
What Japanese people would consider “normal” Sushi we call Nigiri. These items will make up the majority of consumed items in Japan, where here we would consume primarily rolls.
They do not have these jam packed inside out rolls we see here, the only rolls you’ll get in Japan are maki (one or two ingredient, very thin rolls, with the nori on the outside) and you usually only get 2 or 4 pieces at a time for these.
Dammit, now I want to get back to Japan for some good food again.
In my experience, the jam-packed, inside-out, sauce-drenched rolls are characteristic of chain restaurants and shopping districts in the west.
If you’re near a big city, chances are there are also small, independent restaurants that make more traditional nigiri, maki, and sashimi. What they serve is what I consider “normal” sushi. It’s the only kind I ever seek out.
Normal is not defined as what you seek out, but what’s most common in the area.
I can only think of one Nigiri only place, and it’s a specialty place in Vancouver in an absolute sea of 600 (this is around the actual number) sushi restaurants across the metro which do serve rolls.
If you go to Osaka, it’s the exact opposite, 600 nigiri places to 1 roll place.
What Japanese people would consider “normal” Sushi we call Nigiri.
The implication that “we” don’t consider nigiri to be normal sushi doesn’t match my experience at all. Among the people I’ve dined with, normal sushi is nothing like the “jam packed inside out rolls” you described. In other words, I think you’re overgeneralizing.
Normal is not defined as what you seek out, but what’s most common in the area.
That’s one sense of the word, sure. And in the areas where I’ve had sushi, the more traditional style is more common than the stuff you described. (It might be easy to miss, though, especially if you only notice restaurants with significant advertising budgets.)
I mentioned what I seek out not as a definition of “normal”, but to demonstrate a response to what was already considered “normal” before I came along. I have rephrased that comment to try to make this more obvious.
“Among the people I’ve dined with” This is where you’re going wrong. You cannot judge “normal” off your own little circle. You may think the word has other meanings, but they do not apply when talking about what’s “normal” in terms of food.
Link me three sushi places in your area that do not serve rolls besides maki and don’t cost $100 a head, I’ll wait.
Also, western “Sushi” is not the same thing as Japanese Sushi.
What Japanese people would consider “normal” Sushi we call Nigiri. These items will make up the majority of consumed items in Japan, where here we would consume primarily rolls.
They do not have these jam packed inside out rolls we see here, the only rolls you’ll get in Japan are maki (one or two ingredient, very thin rolls, with the nori on the outside) and you usually only get 2 or 4 pieces at a time for these.
Dammit, now I want to get back to Japan for some good food again.
In my experience, the jam-packed, inside-out, sauce-drenched rolls are characteristic of chain restaurants and shopping districts in the west.
If you’re near a big city, chances are there are also small, independent restaurants that make more traditional nigiri, maki, and sashimi. What they serve is what I consider “normal” sushi. It’s the only kind I ever seek out.
Normal is not defined as what you seek out, but what’s most common in the area.
I can only think of one Nigiri only place, and it’s a specialty place in Vancouver in an absolute sea of 600 (this is around the actual number) sushi restaurants across the metro which do serve rolls.
If you go to Osaka, it’s the exact opposite, 600 nigiri places to 1 roll place.
I was responding mainly to this:
The implication that “we” don’t consider nigiri to be normal sushi doesn’t match my experience at all. Among the people I’ve dined with, normal sushi is nothing like the “jam packed inside out rolls” you described. In other words, I think you’re overgeneralizing.
That’s one sense of the word, sure. And in the areas where I’ve had sushi, the more traditional style is more common than the stuff you described. (It might be easy to miss, though, especially if you only notice restaurants with significant advertising budgets.)
I mentioned what I seek out not as a definition of “normal”, but to demonstrate a response to what was already considered “normal” before I came along. I have rephrased that comment to try to make this more obvious.
“Among the people I’ve dined with” This is where you’re going wrong. You cannot judge “normal” off your own little circle. You may think the word has other meanings, but they do not apply when talking about what’s “normal” in terms of food.
Link me three sushi places in your area that do not serve rolls besides maki and don’t cost $100 a head, I’ll wait.
It is not wrong. It is a counterexample, much like some of the other replies you are receiving.
I am not going to dox myself to satisfy your quarrelsome self-importance. Good day.
Anecdotal data is not data.
You have nothing.
Pick any “western” city and give me three, I don’t give a shit where you live.