UncleBuck

I think you're at least near to right on. Not sure about rib mark-up across the entire spectrum of Texas BBQ, but a lot of these joint owners have said the sides and other non-brisket/beef-rib meats are what they make most of their money on.

Back from page 17. My 2nd place pot from last year. 3 weeks away. Spices come in today. Might try a test pot Sunday.

Any time I put on a chili, The Lady gets a pot of water boiling for the spaghetti noodles.

I know a lot of people who feel the same way. They're the wings of BBQ. A rib shack probably couldn't work just anywhere in Texas 20 years ago, but it can definitely do well in today's landscape. EDITED to add: Also, you just offer one meat, and two simple sides that are rather cheap, and that really helps. Not sure if that's the plan, just two simple sides, but it appears that way from the pics. That's huge. Limits the amount of money the customer will spend by not getting a little over everything, while also keeping it pretty much a set price. This also then makes things easier on you.

Can't wait for their burnt ends joint, Endee's

I think it's more sustainable at the moment than opening up another Cen-Tex style bbq joint, at least for them. This isn't the traditional Texas BBQ scene anymore. Texans dig pork ribs, and Goldee's has the clout. Wouldn't surprised if this doesn't become a trend.

Can't deny he looks very viking-ish.

pretty racist tbh

Tried Parisa in C'Ville for the first time back in April en route to Bandera for the Charlie Robison show. Didn't know what I'd think about it, but that first taste was one of my favorite food experiences ever. I'm still not really sure how much I like it, but I really want some more. Even did my research and made some not too long after that trip, and it wasn't terrible, but it also wasn't Dziuk's. I would like to see other places try it, but outside of that region, IMO, because I also feel it's a tad disrespectful (literally, just a tad, as I don't think it's terribly disrspectful) to come right in their front yard making Parisa, unless of course that's where you're from. That plate is $75, prob

Is this the part where I'm supposed to say "I dutch'd your mom last night" or something? I can't remember how this goes...

Maybe to kinda get back on track: Ordered some goods for the competition chili last week. Haven't used the Cowtown Light before, but probably gunna use it as a substitute for the gebhart I'd use, which was only maybe 2 tbsp out of 9 tbsp of the chili powder bill. We'll see what I do after a test batch.

That cannot be disputed. I've mentioned it before that there were peas in it, and I can't find the quote, but it wasn't the article you posted. But that's 1877. By the time that the chili queens were done in the 1930s, their chili con carne, and what finally became to be known as "Chili/Texas Chili," was just meat, peppers and gravy. Tomatoes were accepted at some point. Texas Chili was not the chili con carne of 1877. That's one of the origins we know, including the dry chili bricks the northern mexican army used in the late 1840s etc... I'm sure it'd be even much more different if we go back to the Spanish Canary island settlers of the 1730s, which is another origin, whose recipe may have been being cooked by an early version of the SA chili queens in the early 1800s pre-Mexican occupation. edit: I'll get accepted/excepted right at some point ffs

I think things should be defined clearly. Chili con Carne was/is it's thing, which became to be Chili, which is its own thing. Then we have Chili with Beans, which is also its own thing, as again, it completely changes the dish. We lose the origin of things when we don't define them clearly, so I'm big on that. I don't have a problem with people putting beans in an existing "Texas Chili," but I'd take some issue being invited over for "Texas Chili," and then there are beans in there. Now, I wouldn't be mad, or I wouldn't turn it down, I'm not one of those assholes, but I'd definitely feel tricked, as that is not "Texas Chili," it's "Texas chili WITH beans." As a matter of fact, that's how most out-of-staters refer to chili without beans, "Texas Chili." IMO, putting "Texas" in front Chili IN Texas is redundant. We know Chili is a meal in itself in Texas. So are beans. Throw a little pepper sauce in 'em, some fried potatoes, cornbread or whatever. So you mix two meals, and call it by one of them? Nah. I don't get that.

nm

Yah, I don't have a problem with a lot of that, where I guess you'll lose me is on your "things we can most certainly exclude from chili." 1. "High value" 150 years ago is much different from today, for starters. We know the queens used a mix of pork butt and beef in the 1880s, that and just beef seemed to be most common. I'm sure there were a lot of times they used whatever they could, especially long before that, but for the most part, these pork and beef cuts they used weren't high value. Hell, brisket was a garbage cut until somewhere after the mid 1900s ffs. 2. As *chili became to be defined*, tomatoes were absolutely accepted. Again, we're not talking chili con carne, what it was known as before the chili queens took it to the world, we're talking about what we came to define as "Chili" in the mid-ish 1900s. Remember, The Chili Queens were going on until the 1930s, by then it was almost exclusively beef. 1940ish we see tomatoes. 1950s it's widely referred to as "Chili." IF I make a chunky chili without tomatoes, I'll call it Chili Con Carne. If I make my regular, competition style chili grind chili, with a little tomato sauce in it, or add tomatoes to it at home, I'm more inclined to call that "Chili." And I'd also consider them to both be chili "without beans." No one's advocating that it should be made and eaten like like the Spanish settlers in SA in the early 1700s did, and no one's saying you can't eat yours however you want to eat yours, but when it became known as "Chili," that was a certain thing.

The chili queens would sometimes mix other things with chili, I'm sure beans would have been the number one thing. Only actual mention I've found left it open to interpretation as to whether the beans were actually IN the chili or on the side, but I wouldn't see why it wouldn't sometimes be added to the pot to stretch the pot at the end of the night. Have definitely seen it documented the use of peas to stretch it out. But, as we've stated many times on this chili WITHOUT beans thread, those were/are "in addition" to the original chili. It's then chili with beans, or chili with peas. Chili with peas and beans. Chili on top of avocado toast. You don't throw your pantry in the pot and still call it chili. I mean, for all the shit we give Cincy for the Skyline Chili, at least they have the decency to specify by name that it is not actual chili. I've eaten beans in chili, and it's good. I'm sure I'll do it again. As the chili queens would tell you, and my grandparents etc..., it's a good, inexpensive way to spread out a meal when you're feeding a lot of people. For the chili queens, that meant a little more money. For regular folk, it meant feeding more mouths in the family. But there's no doubt that it takes a chili, or chili con carne, the original, and turns it into something else. From the texture of the beans themselves, to the texture of the gravy. It's just a completely different thing, which is okay, but here on this thread, as the title suggests, we're not talking about that. As for the tomato part previously mentioned, sure, originally they weren't a part of these recipes. But whenever whatever group it is that decides these things met somewhere around the mid-ish 1900s, and the white smoke emerged from the Alamo, variants with tomatoes/tomato sauce made the cut. Is what it be.

Keep this on hand anyway, to add to your beans.

Not sure where this was meant for, but I can agree on the different approaches the two had, but it's because I see two completely different people, who had/have different goals for their music, and also their roles within music. Bruce loves the studio side, the talent side. Charlie wanted to write and perform more than anything. Outside of being brothers, I'm really not sure the two should be compared much, tbh. They're almost apples and oranges to me, though two guys where their crafts just came easy to them. And IMO, though Bruce had the most commercial success in "songwriting" in the end, I'm offended for Charlie any time someone says Bruce was the better of the two at it. I'm not sure that's the case.

Read one of Tweedy's books on songwriting. Interesting dude. Main takeaway was that the guy writes entirely too much.

Also, if you've ever heard The Gourd's "Shake A Chandelier," well, just listen to it and tell me if that's not a nod.

Such a crazy assed story. Dude was a legend. To think, He was like 11 when he played steel guitar on stage at what would be Hank Williams last show.

On my Mount Rushmore of Texas guys, along with Jerry Jeff, Guy Clark and someone who I haven't decided on yet. The fact that there's not a giant statue of this guy somewhere in downtown SA, or some badass murals, is incredibly lame. Maybe when Augie and Flacco go there can be one. Never was a giant fan of Uncle Tupelo's music as a whole (though I've always had a great appreciation for their creativity and impact on the folksternative genre), but have always enjoyed their cover of "Give Back The Key To My Heart" off of their Anodyne album from the early 90s, recorded in Austin. Doug actually sings the 2nd verse, and it gets me every time when he comes in, "WELL YOU SAAAYY III WASSS THE ONNE." Kinda embarrassing, but I left a Pearl at his grave once, burning some time around SA while one of the littl'ns was having some tests done..

Coulda just singled me out, I know my audio was terrible lol. Can't even remember if I used a mic for that recording, and I was singing pretty low. I Might Be Home In The Morning (I'm Damned) V1 I'm headed to town, don't you follow me there, If my folks stop by, tell 'em I'm anywhere, I'll be toes up to the bar, deep in my mind, I might be home in the morning, I might be home tonight No and it ain't your fault, though you blame yourself, I guess I should speak up, instead of leaving you in hell, I ain't always been as selfish as I am today, I might be home in the morning, tonight I can't say, CH Yah and I never thought I'd turn out this way, All the hands that I've been dealt, now I'm dealing 'em myself, And I'm damned. V2 I should reach out to God, reach out to you, It might make things get better, but do I want them to? There's nothin' lookin' forward, I stay stuck here behind, I might be home in the morning, wouldn't count on tonight. (Chorus) V3 I'm headed to town, don't you follow me there, If my folks stop by, tell 'em I'm anywhere, I'll be toes up to the bar, and in my head, like I've always been I might be home in the morning, might not come home again.

Just found this thread, good stuff! figured what the hell, I'll jump in. This is just something I did messing around with bandlab a couple of years ago. I did the acoustic part, then using the bandlab stuff I created a drum track and then ran the acoustic solo through one of the amps on there. Just a short thing messing around. Thought it came out neat: Then here's a song I wrote a couple of years back: