Not fair! No commercial blending! 
Blended Beer. Cheating or not?
- Thread starter Willie3
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
mpruett
Well-Known Member
I'd tend to think that if the goal of BJCP competitions was to judge straight-line, intentionally brewed to style, unblended beers, then it would be stated somewhere obvious. Plus, brewing is as much art as science, and I'd tend to think that the artistry in blending could make some really interesting beers. Hence my vote that it's not cheating.
Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. Who's to say that the best Oktoberfest out there isn't 80% Oktoberfest blended with 20% Dunkel? Or that an Porter might be made better with 10% of a really aged batch blended in? (done historically for flavor).
2. Is it also cheating if you're aiming for one style, but the beer turns out to be a better example of another one? Say you're making a Pilsner, but it turns out more like a Dortmunder- is it cheating to enter it in competition as a Dortmunder? Or let's say you were making a Porter, but it really ends up more stout-like. Are you cheating if you enter it as a stout?
In both cases, the beers in question aren't straight-line, brew to spec type beers, but may be excellent in an absolute sense, and also for the style they're entered in.
Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. Who's to say that the best Oktoberfest out there isn't 80% Oktoberfest blended with 20% Dunkel? Or that an Porter might be made better with 10% of a really aged batch blended in? (done historically for flavor).
2. Is it also cheating if you're aiming for one style, but the beer turns out to be a better example of another one? Say you're making a Pilsner, but it turns out more like a Dortmunder- is it cheating to enter it in competition as a Dortmunder? Or let's say you were making a Porter, but it really ends up more stout-like. Are you cheating if you enter it as a stout?
In both cases, the beers in question aren't straight-line, brew to spec type beers, but may be excellent in an absolute sense, and also for the style they're entered in.
BigB
Well-Known Member
Well first off I don't have a recipe for bourbon oaked porter... So unless there is more substance to your point...
Well then make a recipe with your two mediocre malts or hops... I am not suggesting that using multiple ingredients in a recipe is bad, I merely saying if you brewed a beer and its just ok, but want to enhance it with another beer that has the profile additions you are looking for, you are not a winner. Take the best of the two recipes, combine them, and brew that... don't just mix beers.
As far as the GABF... Again without merit... They are still doing it to sell a product... not necessarily to sell the product that they won with, but for the advertising mileage that goes with being a GABF winner...
Well I guess that it follows that you have inconsistently arbitrary rules for what constitutes a finished beer as well as what makes an argument.
There's plenty of substance to my point. That you choose to ignore it is another matter entirely. How about this: make me up a recipe for a black and tan that doesn't involve blending.
hal2814
Well-Known Member
You are never a winner. The beer is. You're not entering homebrewer competitions. You're entering homebrew competitions.
Suppose a terrible brewer somehow catches lightning in a bottle and makes a award-winning beer (without blending for the sake of argument). They're still not the best brewer but they did rightly win the competition. More often than not, the best brewer in the room isn't going home with the win. But the best beer is going home with the win every time.
Or better yet, let's play this out. Say someone takes some mediocre beers, mixes them to make something great, and enters it into the comp. You take a mediocre beer and enter it into the same category. Do you think you deserve the win over the better beer?
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,841
- Reaction score
- 857
From the BJCP website:
So you're saying that they are trying to make my beer smarter.
brewagentjay
Well-Known Member
I'm a newbie, hope to brew my first batch this Saturday. I voted "no" because I enjoy black and tans so see no reason you can't blend beers to get what you want. I'd say it's suspect if you blend a commerical blend with your your own brew but even with that if it tates good and you enjoy it a certain way who am I to judge........
**Note fruiting the beer is against man laws..****
**Note fruiting the beer is against man laws..****
BigB
Well-Known Member
Please explain what is "arbitrary" about what I said? Besides, my point was directed at why the GABF is not a valid argument. Your argument that I am being arbitrary about what a finished beer is the functional equivalent of "liar, liar, pants on fire." It is completely off point. If you think I am wrong about the commercial brewers having a profit motive to blend, then explain why.
Then explain your point. I don't recall there being a BJCP style category for Black and Tan. If your point was that you can't make a bourbon smoked porter without adding bourbon, then fine... but that is something completely different than mixing two "beers" together to make something you otherwise don't have the ability to do.
You're kidding, right? Do they give YOU an award for YOUR BEER creating itself for a "HOMEBREW" competition?
By arbitrary, i mean this:
That you are telling us, that among all of the methods of creating a beer through extract, partial mash, all grain, using software, using a recipe you created from scratch or used another's verbatim, different techniques of fermentation, packaging, dozens of methods of carbonation forced and natural and various uses of sugars to carbonate, boil kettle additions, post fermentation additions, use of adjuncts, use of commercially obtained yeasts, yeasts derrived from bottle dregs, entering a style that may not have been originally intended, additions of fruit or mead or extracts, additions of hop oils or extracts, use of clarifiers, use of spices where traditionally only yeast was used, use of darkening agents such as cinamar, that you would draw the line at blending.
Blending... a traditional method from which many if not most styles historically were derrived, which has been used from day 1 of brewing's 5000 + year history, which is used before beer was sold commercially and is an essential tool in its current commercial application.
That of all of those tools at the brewer's disposal... the brewer- who decides when the beer is complete and ready to be served, that you have deemed that tool to be apart from brewing- nay below brewing somehow.
Your commercial distraction is just that, Why would their contest entries be any less noble in your opinion?
That you are telling us, that among all of the methods of creating a beer through extract, partial mash, all grain, using software, using a recipe you created from scratch or used another's verbatim, different techniques of fermentation, packaging, dozens of methods of carbonation forced and natural and various uses of sugars to carbonate, boil kettle additions, post fermentation additions, use of adjuncts, use of commercially obtained yeasts, yeasts derrived from bottle dregs, entering a style that may not have been originally intended, additions of fruit or mead or extracts, additions of hop oils or extracts, use of clarifiers, use of spices where traditionally only yeast was used, use of darkening agents such as cinamar, that you would draw the line at blending.
Blending... a traditional method from which many if not most styles historically were derrived, which has been used from day 1 of brewing's 5000 + year history, which is used before beer was sold commercially and is an essential tool in its current commercial application.
That of all of those tools at the brewer's disposal... the brewer- who decides when the beer is complete and ready to be served, that you have deemed that tool to be apart from brewing- nay below brewing somehow.
Your commercial distraction is just that, Why would their contest entries be any less noble in your opinion?
If one were to construe my counter opinion as calling one a liar, then:
an argument might be made that this ^^ infers a cheat.
an argument might be made that this ^^ infers a cheat.
weremichael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 17
I am well aware of the style guides changing as recently as a few years ago. My point is that certain styles (I believe that Strong was talking about blending hoppy beers) are not blended (traditionally) and that nowhere in the style guide is blending mentioned for those beers.
Those that point out the argument that Macro and Micro Breweries blend IPAs APAs etc is true. Their reasoning is to sell their consumers a consistent product, not to win a homebrew competition. I am not saying that blending isn't as much of a craft as brewing. In the past when I was really into Daniel's Designing Great Beers and the history of certain styles of beer (around 2001 or so), I became obsessed with Old Ales and Stock Ales. I spent several years building up Old Ales and blending them with the younger beers. I learned a lot about the craft of blending and how it affected my brewing.
My point (and I appreciate and respect the civility of the counterpoints so far) is if one plays the game of style then they need to respect the history of the style and honor the style by brewing it to style. So if one enters a blended example of a style that is not traditionally blended into a competition, then they are a cheater. The word is pretty harsh. But I always inferred (possibly incorrectly) that there is a gentlemen's agreement that one brews to the historic examples given in the style guide. So if the beer is traditionally blended, blend away. If not, don't blend.
-Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what's arbitrary about the arguments being made is that the couple of people arguing against blending have drawn a line in the sand, for reasons I don't think have been very well explained. The only common argument I hear is something along the lines of "it's ok to add this, this, this, and this, and it's ok to do this, this and this, but as soon as you add beer to your beer, it's no longer acceptable." WHY?
Maybe blending was not to aid a beer that is "missing something" or because you messed it up, maybe it's to experiment with new flavors or complexities. But who cares why, it's YOUR beer, and you should be encouraged to make it how YOU want it to be. Why is another beer the magical ingredient that should be forbidden?
I'm not sure I understand why having a profit motive or not matters? Why should the perceived intentions of the individual brewers govern the rules behind the competition?
Can't argue with you there.
The point being made here is pretty clear. The judges aren't judging the ability of the brewer, the knowledge of the brewer, the capabilities of the brewer, or anything like that. They are judging the merits of the beer as they stand by themselves. Whether they be blended, brewed straight up, brewed extract, or all-grain, made with adjuncts or not, with whiskey added, or intended bacterial additions. All that matters are the style guidelines, and the subjective tastes of the judges.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, and a hearty cheers/banana dance/cheers goes to all involved.
EDIT: I think olllllo's comments above:
say all I was intending to.
It says nowhere in the BJCP guidelines about aging porters in bourbon barrels. It says nothing in regards to smoking grains before adding them to a stout. It says nothing about dry-hopping an English Pale Ale. By entering a beer in to a category after doing these types of things, does that make me a cheater?
The BJCP Guidelines are just that, guidelines. There are blue-ribbons that come out of every competition that are a result of beers that are not precisely to style, but the judges felt that it was the best representation of the group.
Last edited by a moderator:
weremichael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 17
YES, YOU'RE A CHEATER!!! I don't know, are you?? No, I'm just kidding. Judging by its very nature is subjective (just like this topic). I've never competed and never will (I get feedback from friends, family and even some brewers at larger breweries (even one big one in Northern Colorado) and I take all with a grain of salt.
BigB
Well-Known Member
You are of course right. I am drawing a line in the sand. Maybe I am being arbitrary to a point about where I am drawing the line and what my personal ethics mean to me. And I also also agree with both yours and Ollio's (sp?) that there are many additions and many ingredients. But at some point, and again this is my personal ethics, there comes a point where you have to be finshed. Where is that point? To me, that point is crossed when one is no longer brewing and is merely mixing two things they have brewed to make somethig they didn't have the ability to otherwise do. If one's ethics allow them to go that far, then fine, but don't expect me to respect that person as a winner. Call me a purist, call me arbitrary. But I will still respect the brewer, winner or loser, who puts their best foot forward with a brew rather than a blend. As with most everything in life, there is an arbitrary ethical line in the sand.
That wasn't my commercial distraction. If you look back you will see that I was saying using the commercial brewers as a comparison to homebrewing is a distraction. What makes their entries less noble? I'm not saying that all their entries are less noble... just the ones that blend to win a competition. Your question seems to confuse two earlier points I made: 1. Commercial brewers who blend is not comparable to a homebrewing competition because commercial brewers have a motive to improve their product and to ensure that it is consistent so they can remain a viable profit making entity. 2. The fact that some commercial brewers may blend a beer to win the GABF, allthough they could never realize a profit on the entered beer, does not mean that they are doing it for personal sense of accomplishment- its about being able to advertise that their brewery won the GABF. The consumer public, for the most part, do not grasp the concept that the company doesn't "sell" award winning beer.
So to sum: What commercial breweries do with the products they sell or the competitions they enter is simply not germaine to a discussion about homebrewing competitions.
I just want to clarify your stance, here.
Which, if any of the following techniques, do you have a problem with in regards to preparing a beer for a BJCP competition?
1. Dry hopping
2. Adding, for example, bourbon and/or oak chips to a beer.
3. Use gelatin, pectic enzyme, or other clarifying agents after fermentation is complete.
4. Filter your beer.
5. Blend a beer which is historically blended, e.g. Gueuze, Ould Bruin.
6. Use the dregs from commercial beers to harvest yeast.
7. Use commercially-produced hopped extract.
8. Add spices, fruits, or other flavorings after fermentation.
9. Add more yeast to a stuck fermentation.
10. Add amylase enzyme to dry out a beer.
Which, if any of the following techniques, do you have a problem with in regards to preparing a beer for a BJCP competition?
1. Dry hopping
2. Adding, for example, bourbon and/or oak chips to a beer.
3. Use gelatin, pectic enzyme, or other clarifying agents after fermentation is complete.
4. Filter your beer.
5. Blend a beer which is historically blended, e.g. Gueuze, Ould Bruin.
6. Use the dregs from commercial beers to harvest yeast.
7. Use commercially-produced hopped extract.
8. Add spices, fruits, or other flavorings after fermentation.
9. Add more yeast to a stuck fermentation.
10. Add amylase enzyme to dry out a beer.
weremichael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 17
I am going to just speak for myself. If you brew beer you're a cheater. I might have to step out of this thread, because I am finding it too much like brewing competitions.
hal2814
Well-Known Member
Did you really just praise the civility yet call people cheaters in the same breath? To cheat, there has to be a violation of the rules. Where is that violation? What explicit rule is being broken? Until you can produce that, we have at best a conflict on what is ethical.
I get wanting to respect the history of the style but are any of us really brewing to the history of the style? I'm not aware of any styles traditionally brewed with a turkey fryer and fermented in a plastic bucket. We do what we can to emulate the results, not the process. Understanding the historical process is important to understanding the results (and is fun to learn on top of that). But the results are key and the results are how you are judged.
And to kind of touch on something said earlier, the purpose of the BJCP competitions is to make the entrants better brewers but that doesn't happen by winning. If that were the case, very few brewers would progress. The entrants become better brewers by looking at the score cards and comments and figuring out what they did wrong and what they did right based on that. The "winner" is just the beer that happened to have the highest score. And IMHO, that should go to the best beer in the category regardless of the process used (as long as it is the entrant's own work).
Last edited by a moderator:
BigB
Well-Known Member
You can answer this question yourself... Just ask yourself which of these are ingredients and which are brewed beers. I really don't think I need to be more clear. As I stated several times: I have a problem at the point when you are no longer using ingredients and are merely mixing beers together. I took the original post as a question about the ethics of blending beers to win a competition. NOT a question about which ingredients one may use to brew a beer. Define what you wish as an ingredient. If my view of what the original post asked is different from others thought it asked, then that could be where the confusion lies. Otherwise, it is a no-brainer for me: It is not ethical to mix beers together to win a competition. Period. That is my opinion.
DavidSteel
Well-Known Member
Yes because it was accidental and taking responsibility for the production of something that they didn't actually make (as it was mere accident, meaning it was not intentional). If you throw random color on paper, is it art? No. If you paint something that is objectively good and someone likes it because they can see a boob in it or something subjective that was not portrayed in it, should that be how everyone looks at the painting? No. We have a purpose when we do things and we cannot take responsibility for things we did not intentionally work for. The same concept comes from these situations: if someone says something and you take it as truth by sheer word from the person and it ends up being true, should it then be held that you were correct? It's not obvious, but OF COURSE NOT! You didn't do the research, you didn't look in to it yourself, you did not investigate and form your own ideas. You didn't even hold a real position. There is a difference between someone intentionally putting something together (e.g. gluing 2 blocks of wood together) and accidentally spilling glue, covering it with another piece of wood, having someone else notice a use for it, and claim responsibility for making it. It does not and should not ever work that way. In today's society we like to think of the subjective and things being formulated in our mind. I call buIIshlt. Quote related.
"Belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer...Who so would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his belief with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away...If [a] belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence [even though the belief be true] the pleasure is a stolen one...It is sinful because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the rest of the town...It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon sufficient evidence."
-William Kingdon Clifford
"Belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer...Who so would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his belief with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away...If [a] belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence [even though the belief be true] the pleasure is a stolen one...It is sinful because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the rest of the town...It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon sufficient evidence."
-William Kingdon Clifford
DavidSteel
Well-Known Member
I would only say this is okay if you brewed two different beers yourself WITH the intention of mixing them together. Otherwise, absolutely no. And I can't think of a good reason why someone would brew 2 beers for the single reason of mixing them together.
weremichael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 17
I'm sorry if you think I was being prickish, it wasn't my intent. It's your beer and your entry to competitions. Do your thing. I don't compete, but understand why some do compete. Different Strokes... I was just offering an opinion about a subculture of homebrewing that, to be honest, I don't have a lot in common with (other than the typical drinking homebrew and making better beer with each batch).
Peace brother.
Wow, so now there are several cases being made for the idea that an amazing finished product is only "legit" if every aspect of the beer was as the brewer planned. Say I'm shooting for a 1.055 OG American Amber but I miss and hit 1.060. The beer is great and it wins best of show. I should probably hang my head in shame for winning with a beer that feel outside of my original intent.
The same tired dry hopping argument must be invoked again. What if I didn't PLAN to dryhop because I think my large flameout addition will be enough. What if it isn't enough and I skip the plan and dryhop a beer that later wins. Again, I suck right??
These competitions are specifically designed to evaluate the beers they are tasting against the guidelines and NOT how the brewer arrived at it. If they did, extract brewers would HAVE to be docked points in principal.
The same tired dry hopping argument must be invoked again. What if I didn't PLAN to dryhop because I think my large flameout addition will be enough. What if it isn't enough and I skip the plan and dryhop a beer that later wins. Again, I suck right??
These competitions are specifically designed to evaluate the beers they are tasting against the guidelines and NOT how the brewer arrived at it. If they did, extract brewers would HAVE to be docked points in principal.
DavidSteel
Well-Known Member
I'd like to add that I know this is a controversial view, but a good one to hold if you like anything to have value. Otherwise, put some sugar in water with some random wild yeast and call that your favorite "beer" just because you dumped 2 cans of BMC in there. I know this is an exaggerated claim, but if you claim/follow the subjective approach then beer styles and defining characteristics go away and don't matter. Start throwing 2lbs of roasted barley in your "pale ale". Scales on how a beer is rated and scored go away.
I'll stick with an objective standpoint in that, I have a vision of what I want to make and plan it out that way. If there are little surprises like some subtle flavor from the yeast that I didn't know about, that should be okay (as long as I knew about the yeast). Same can be said about hops and grain, and I say this because grain and hops have different characteristics depending on how they are treated. Some are gather at different times with different soil, roasted malts don't all get the same "roast" (some may be in the middle, while some are on the side etc.) and these are all subtlety we take into account. It's randomly throwing things together that should not qualify. Now, I'm not saying this is wrong by any means. It may be a good way to experiment and find out certain characteristics and research about grains, yeast, hops, etc. Just don't claim responsibility for it as if it were your recipe. Though, in this case, if this beer were submitted, I wouldn't be against giving this person an award etc. if it was a good beer. Thank him for discovering it and putting the work in to it. It's more or less an award FOR the beer, not the person. He just gets to hold on to it for putting the effort forth. When people ask him about the award, he should claim it is the beer's award, he just helped it along. I'd also say this should be the case in many situations. It's only those who have researched, investigated, and had much experience with what they are working with that can actually claim that the award is theirs (e.g. making a recipe yourself, tweaking, if necessary, and brewing it many many times, as to know exactly what flavors etc. go into the beer, before submitting it). Tough stuff, but if you want an award, that implies you have to earn it and earning something involves responsibility. You can walk up to your neighbor and shoot him/her in the face for no reason or accept that your are responsible for your actions. Setting free will and all that aside, I think Sarte expressed this point well: http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialistthemes/a/abandonment.htm
I'll stick with an objective standpoint in that, I have a vision of what I want to make and plan it out that way. If there are little surprises like some subtle flavor from the yeast that I didn't know about, that should be okay (as long as I knew about the yeast). Same can be said about hops and grain, and I say this because grain and hops have different characteristics depending on how they are treated. Some are gather at different times with different soil, roasted malts don't all get the same "roast" (some may be in the middle, while some are on the side etc.) and these are all subtlety we take into account. It's randomly throwing things together that should not qualify. Now, I'm not saying this is wrong by any means. It may be a good way to experiment and find out certain characteristics and research about grains, yeast, hops, etc. Just don't claim responsibility for it as if it were your recipe. Though, in this case, if this beer were submitted, I wouldn't be against giving this person an award etc. if it was a good beer. Thank him for discovering it and putting the work in to it. It's more or less an award FOR the beer, not the person. He just gets to hold on to it for putting the effort forth. When people ask him about the award, he should claim it is the beer's award, he just helped it along. I'd also say this should be the case in many situations. It's only those who have researched, investigated, and had much experience with what they are working with that can actually claim that the award is theirs (e.g. making a recipe yourself, tweaking, if necessary, and brewing it many many times, as to know exactly what flavors etc. go into the beer, before submitting it). Tough stuff, but if you want an award, that implies you have to earn it and earning something involves responsibility. You can walk up to your neighbor and shoot him/her in the face for no reason or accept that your are responsible for your actions. Setting free will and all that aside, I think Sarte expressed this point well: http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialistthemes/a/abandonment.htm
DavidSteel
Well-Known Member
The beer wins, not you. You get a pat on the back for putting the effort forth into making it, but you are not responsible for it in this case.
Edit: I must have read the first part of your post too fast. For the dry-hopping, see above post.
For the slight miss in IBU or gravity due to unknown, lets call them, imperfections in the hops (not well-recorded AA, let's say) or slight miss in mashing temp by 1-2 degrees (or the machine weighing the grains was inaccurate a little), I think are dismissible, but only a certain extent. If you want to take responsibility for a beer, you should have a lot of experience with that beer (in making it, knowledge about what goes in to it, exact amount of hops, etc etc.). I, personally wouldn't take it this far. I think it is enough to have a planned vision of what you are going to make and then act on that vision. If it does not turn out how you have seen it, keep working at it. Once you have it, master it. Only then can it be called your beer (unless, that is, you buy into the realm of the subjective and thence anyone can see the beer for whatever they want and it loses it's objective value and vision that you constructed it with. Think of a tarp with paint splattered on it randomly. Is this "art"? No. It is not. There is a purpose behind what an artist does and a certain objectivity in their creation that they have built it on and want people to see. People can claim to feel all sorts of percepts (e.g. emotions) it gives them, but these people completely miss the point). People that act (paint) without a purpose in mind are not making "art". I could keep going, but I don't feel it's as related. Another way to think of it is as a BMC drinker liking your beer because it's red and that is it. Does that make your beer good because it is red? Hell no. That is an amber ale brewed with: ______ ________ _______ etc. etc. You wonder why we hate BMC drinkers and don't like people who don't understand something for what it is.).
There's nothing 'objective' about this. All of this is determined by some predetermined, subjective threshold about what constitutes an acceptable inaccuracy in the original intent of the brew. An 'objective' viewpoint would be, "blending is not against the rules, therefore it is not cheating nor unethical." All other opinions presented in this thread, as agreed upon by BigB above, are subjective definitions as determined by each person.
Well, couldn't get past the first page before realizing this might be one of the most useless arguments ever. I imagine it was all clarified in the remaining 14 pages...but I'll never know!
DavidSteel
Well-Known Member
I need a facepalm smiley. You're trying to make reference to a part of something I said that weighs on the foundations of my previous statements. I don't think you grasp what I'm trying to express when I say objective. Get out of your western ways of thinking about what you think you know the objective is. Start at the top of page 15. If you can't grasp it for some reason, it may be my fault for not being so clear under these contexts, but I don't feel that I should need to explain this any further than I have, considering this is a beer forum. If you want to learn more about it, there are many books out there dedicated to such ideas. I'd suggest reading "The Birth of Tragedy" but I think in order to grasp what Nietzsche is trying to get across, even on a mid-level of intellect, one would need to know a great deal of history of mythology, philosophy, and liberal arts.
If you don't feel like looking into it because it is too much effort, then I'll simply say this: don't dismiss a view just because you don't like it or agree with it. Research (think) before you speak.
ChrisKennedy
Well-Known Member
That last post has to be one of the most pompous things I have ever read.
DavidSteel
Well-Known Member
I don't post my opinions, as I don't feel I have researched enough on both sides of any argument to have a strong opinion. I only present counter-arguments to claims and debates. Consider it the Socratic method of leading people into a state of Aporia in a modern sense.
So you considering viewing art (amongst other things, namely beer) from an objective standpoint as pompous? I don't think you grasp either 1) what I am attempting to claim (in a brief summary). 2) what the word pompous means. or 3) both.
Now, instead of immediately criticizing statements based on a gut reaction due to socialization and habituation, instead, why don't you take this (the suggestion made of objective vs. subjective) in to consideration and think about it for a few brief moments. Your rationality will thank you.
If you can't grasp my personal philosophy, maybe this description of it will help you:
I like leading people into a state of Aporia. I believe that everyone should re-think statements they feel strongly about because they may not have formed their beliefs on the best foundation(s) or appropriate reasoning. I don't think it is ethical for people to have strong opinions on subjects they don't fully understand. I also don't think that people should narrow their ways of thinking based on belief systems that limit the expansion of human knowledge and understanding. It seems to me that these ways of thinking are often based on notions which imply that the idea of being wrong is a bad thing... and that is just not true.
Stop thinking of what is being stated as personal opinion, it is simply an additional argument to the concern of this thread. It is NOT my own and it held by many great thinkers. You seem to somehow hold that what I am presenting is a personal vendetta I have set for myself and want to share in influence with others. Just because a view puts one's own views in to question does NOT make it "pompous". Don't dismiss something just because you don't like it or it doesn't sound good to you.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,841
- Reaction score
- 857
This cute play on words keeps being repeated, but it’s a ridiculous concept. The competitors beers are entered in a blind fashion so that the brewers abilities can be judged in a non-discriminatory fashion. The beer is a simple representation of its brewer’s skill and a BJCP competition is a way of comparing these skills in a fair way.
You are your beer!
You may discover some performance enhancing substance that makes you a better athlete. It’s not banned by the sports community, so you are not cheating. But you’re not playing on a level field with the rest of your competitors. With some styles, blending is acceptable, but if you’re blending to build your IPA, you’re not playing the same game that I’m playing.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,841
- Reaction score
- 857
Where will this method of creating beer to a style lead? I picture a guy with 20 kegs of SMaSH type homebrew in his basement. On their own, they are fairly simple, but each having a distinct characteristic. Rather than brewing to a style, he blends his way there. This would be a definite skill and pretty a cool thing to be able to do, but its not my idea of being a brewer. Guess Im just showing my age and resistance to chance.
weremichael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 17
hal2814
Well-Known Member
I think you've counter-argued yourself. If you're evaluating the brewer instead of the beer, then why the need for blind entries? If someone is a better brewer then shouldn't their name be on that brew so it helps the judges make a decision?
I've been rolling this over a lot in my head since yesterday afternoon and I found an scenario that interests me because it challenges my own stance. If you were a judge and you knew in advance which beers in a competition were blended and which were not, would you be biased towards the unblended? I had to think about that one. In the end, I decided I could be unbiased but that I had to stop and think at all tells me that in my mind I don't put blending on an equal footing with other brewing methods. I ran over a few other scenarios in my head and the only other one that gave me such pause was if I knew in advance which beers were extract versus all-grain. It would be hard to leave my biases at the door. And you can take that for what it's worth. It's just me being honest (and proof that I would probably make a poor judge).
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,841
- Reaction score
- 857
No. Why would you think that a judge should be prejudiced by knowing who the brewer was? His skill at brewing this one beer is being judged, not his overall skill as a brewer. This shouldn’t be influenced by past performance or anything else but the sample he put up to representing himself on that day.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,841
- Reaction score
- 857
So, that means I am my yeast?But yeast made the beer.
I must be a Belgian Yeast. I hate being cold.
slowbie
Well-Known Member
But yeast made the beer.
+1 to this. All you and I can do is make sugar water that tastes pretty terrible.
I'm just going to attempt to one up everyone's purist views and ask how dare you take credit for the yeast's hard work?
An analogy: Did everyone talk about how Jerry Buss won the NBA finals this past year? No, they did not. Not at all. People talked about Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, Pau Gasol, etc. The way I see it, you are the Jerry Buss to your beer, and the yeast are Kobe Bryant. Jerry Buss provides those players with the incentive(money) and tools(workout facilities, coaching staff, arena, and schedule) to be great basketball players, ultimately bringing him money and pride.
You provide your yeast with incentive(tons of sugar water) and tools (temperature control, sanitation, etc.) to make a great beverage, ultimately bringing you beer and pride.
rmolledo
Well-Known Member
as long as you blend from another beer you brewed it seems fair becuase you still created it from scratch. If you blend with a commercial beer then thats cheating IMO
Similar threads
- Poll
