Styles - The chains that bind?
I've just posted this on an NZ forum, but thought I'd post here (with explanatory annotations) also to get some US-centric views...
A few things have come together recently, and provoked some thoughts on beer styles.
I was listening to a podcast rant from Peter Bouckert (brewer at New Belgium in the US) on how he finds styles constricting, and an impediment to his art. Luke [Nicholas, brewer of Epic Pale Ale in NZ] also posted that he couldn't enter Epic in many competitions because of style constraints, and now the thread here [here actually...] on defining the NZ Strong Pilsener or whatever it might become. It made me wonder if the tail is starting to wag the dog...
Styles were/are a great way to get people into beer. They show people that beer is far more than the narrow definition they may have had, and open people up to a new world of exploration. For beer nerds like me, they give something to tick off in our quest to taste every style available, and contrast examples of styles from different breweries. They provide a great way of simplifying competitions by providing an objective set of parameters to judge a given beer against. It's this last that is probably the most useful in the world of beer competitions, and competitions drive creativity and innovation in beer.
However, I wonder if styles have now served their purpose as a focussing/educational tool and are beginning to constrict the creativity of the brewer? An award from a recognised competition is a great way to promote your beer, so many brewers will try to brew beers to a style so they can enter, in the process, perhaps not brewing their "dream beer" which we as consumers then miss out on. There will always be brewers who, through creativity and passion (or sometimes just style ignorance/apathy) will brew great unique beers which fall outside the accepted styles, but I do wonder how much more creativity we would see if brewers weren't so constrained.
What does everyone here think? I'm particularly interested in the opinions of commercial brewers, but homebrewers also, as we have to enter competitions in style categories too! Are there any alternatives, especially to facilitate fair objective judging, without having to constrain brewers to specific styles?
Craft Beer Radio is an Internet talk show about craft and micro brewed beers. The mission of the show is to spread the word of good beer. We introduce people to craft beer, and teach them about different beer styles, brewers who make them, and beer history. Whether you are new to craft beer or have been drinking it for more than 20 years we have something for you.
If you have comments or questions that you would like us to read over the air, Email Us.
I guess if you're really
I guess if you're really concerned about getting your off-style beers to have awards it's one thing, but no one is "bound" to style if they just want to make good beer. Yes, when beers are judged, there are style guidlines - like there are for wines or for dog shows or for ice skating.
Nothing is preventing people from making beers outside of style. I can't really muster up a lot of sympathy because a person isn't getting an award.
Less of an issue?
Hrm, maybe it's not much of an issue in the US, where there is widespread acceptance of good craft beer, and the most gonzo brew will still find a devoted audience - the market is huge. Here, not so much, and brewers often rely on awards to promote their beers to a fairly ignorant audience.
I'd really like to see someone come up with an alternative way to judge beers, but I certainly can't think of one.
I will argue that style is
I will argue that style is extremely important and useful. Lets look at this hypothetical situation:
I start a beer podcast based out of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. I get listeners all over the country and world. I even get a listener in New Zealand who can only get 1 out of every 100 beers tasted on the show. In my attempt to describe the character of a beer I use the beers style as the baseline of the description. It's hoppier than most bravarian pilsners, Or it's Malty English IPA. Describing how a beer compares to the style allows everyone to get a similar baseline to go from.
If we didn't have the universal language of styles it would be a lot harder to convey what a beer tastes like on the podcast.
I feel that Peter Bouckert is needlessly anti styles and uses that to get people to rethink what they take for granted. I've rethought about it and I maintain that styles are very useful.
It's stupid to knock down a good beer does not fit any established style, which is what Peter means in his talks, and I agree with him. but his scorched earth method of getting across does not appeal to me.
As for judging, I think it's important that the beer you make fits into the proper style, if you enter an IPA in the Pale Ale category, you need to be knocked for that, otherwise I'll just start entering breakfast stouts in every style from Light Lager, to Helles, to Witbier. And in those lineups I should nearly always win as best beer.
If you have a great beer that is not representative of a classic style, then enter The Specialty Beer Category BJCP 23. They should call it Wow Beers!
23 eh?
I had never noticed that category before. That does seem to be the answer to the question I was posing, though it must be a pig to judge.
I definitely agree that styles are fantastic for providing a basic language for communication. I'm catching up on all the CBR I missed while overseas, and am listening to 110 at the moment - full of WOW! beers. And you're dead right, how would I be able to share the experience of those beers with you were it not for style descriptions as a base?
Thanks for the replies, good food for thought.