Raku vs. Musha... Who would win?
I had another meal which made me happy at Raku recently, which got me thinking... Musha occupies a somewhat similar niche as Raku in the West LA dining scene.
Raku vs. Musha - what are their differences? Does one do something better/worse than the other? Which one would you rather go to (if you had to pick)?
Just curious, and thanks in advance!
IMO, Musha accommodates the young Japanese person's palate. It's heavier on the sauce and generally richer in taste. Even though I'm not big on gloppy teriyaki-type sauces, I love the takotama.
Raku, on the other hand, carries light, crisp dishes that are more subtle in flavor. One of my favorites is the renkon hasami age, which is a deepfried burdock root stuffed with minced chicken and a shiso leaf. Sure it's deepfried but you don't get that sense because the renkon doesn't soak up the oil.
I'd probably choose Raku, mainly for the overall eating/digesting experience. Though both are great.
I believe renkon is lotus root. Yes, it's delicious. I also like the deep fried zucchini flowers stuffed with shrimp paste. We always also order tofu salad (very tasty dressing), marinated black cod with daikon, stewed konjac, korean pancake, kimchi fried rice, udon w/ clams and special items from the white board.