What does "good beer" mean?

TheHopfather said:

You answered your own question with the first post. Bud Light sells the most beer, therefore they make "good" beer. People who brew their own beer aren't necessarily going to agree with that subjective taste that the majority of the population has, but neither is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Ask 100 mothers why they buy 2 loaves of Wonderbread every week and most of them will probably answer with something along the lines of "because my kids eat lots of sammiches and I go through bread quickly lol."

What they're NOT likely to do is answer with a list of traits that make Wonderbread "good" compared to the other choices. They just need bread--a common household commodity--so they buy a name they recognize and go on with their day.

Bud Light sells in large volumes to people who treat beer as a commodity in much the same way, and in my experience, most of them will openly admit that is how they view beer. That being the case, I don't believe that Bud Light sales figures say anything meaningful at all about how good the beer is; they just show that Bud Light ticks the following boxes:

- readily available
- reasonably priced
- inoffensive
- familiar

For shoppers who are completely incurious about the myriad possibilities of beer but need a way to get a buzz at the neighborhood barbecue, it gets the job done.

Now, there is still the question: of all the BMC/AAL brands out there, why does Bud Light sell the best? I know most people fancy themselves too smart to be manipulated by marketing, but... they are manipulated by marketing. The indifferent shopper that is looking to buy beer but, at the same time, "doesn't care about beer" is the perfect target for savvy marketing.

Also, it's interesting how Bud Light is arguably one of the most watery, flavorless common beers out there. That's telling; it suggests that sales in that demographic are dictated not by what the product has, but what it doesn't have--flavors.

AZCoolerBrewer said:

Personally, I want to be different, I like exploring and trying new things and I want to be able to really taste my beer, so while I will drink and enjoy a bud light, it is not my favorite beer. Not being "soft" comes at a cost of only doing things one way. Not a fruit cup comes at a cost of never being able to enjoy fruit flavors. Not imported means never tasting what the world may have to offer.

Seriously, I am not judging. It takes all kinds of people to make this world go around. I have enjoyed being able to drink more than one kind of beer, but give a nod to those very valid people who have enjoyed only wanting to drink one kind of beer.

Click to expand...

Wait, what thread am I in? Didn't think this was the AB Super Bowl commercial thread.

Taste is subjective, whether it is describing good restaurants, wine, sex, books, or beer. Any review, even blind tastings, will be subjective, since tastes and preferences differ. Reviewers are influenced by a variety of factors, both historical and whatever happened to be occurring when writing their review. Anyone interpreting any review as 'fact' is an idiot.

That said, reviews still serve several worthwhile purposes, but should always be taken with a grain of salt (or a heaping of horse blanket).

blizz81 said:

I don't really care about adhering to BJCP guidelines, especially as to whether or not by beers are "good".

Click to expand...

You may not, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the main reasons the BJCP style guidelines were developed was to allow beers to be objectively compared.

Without the style guidelines, it's rather pointless to even attempt to compare beers against each other in terms of quality. You can say you like a beer with a bunch of diacetyl, and therefore it's "good" in your opinion. Maybe I like my hamburgers the way I make them (the secret ingredient is sheep manure!) but you don't particularly care for them. Without an objective set of standards to compare them against, it just becomes entirely personal preference, and no meaningful ranking can be assigned.

mattdee1 said:

Also, it's interesting how Bud Light is arguably one of the most watery, flavorless common beers out there. That's telling; it suggests that sales in that demographic are dictated not by what the product has, but what it doesn't have--flavors.

Click to expand...

It's a good example of the style, and a very difficult style; if there are any flaws at all, they stand out because there's nothing for them to hide behind.

Back to the original question, I'll answer 3, The brewer accomplished exactly what was intended. The same beer may be good or bad, depending on how the intent changes. Example: "Hey, this beer is pretty good, I think I'll enter it in a contest". Now the judge's opinion matters; previously it did not. Or you offer some to your friends and most of them think it tastes like ass. (there's always one guy who'll drink anything)

As Dr. Bamforth said recently on the Brewing Network.

People love the three letters. IPA is a great example. Why do you think they call Pale Ales, session IPAs now instead (don't fool yourself, its just a heavily hopped slightly lower gravity Pale Ale). Put up on your tap list that you have such and such Session IPA, and the same beer but list it as a Pale Ale, I'd bet good money the session IPA will sell more than the Pale Ale.

Bud Light, three letters. "Gimme a Bud light" "Gimme an IPA", my personal take on why (partially) Bud light is the best selling beer.

What makes a good beer? Something I'll pick up again to drink for the taste, instead of just to keep the buzz going (or would pick up and drink again if supply/access is an issue). If we are only talking about "good" beer then I think that's all that's required to define it as good. Trying to go further you end up in the world of intangibles. (I would add one more small thing, a "good" craft beer is a craft beer that can convert BMC drinkers to craft beer)

Amazing/world changing beer? Then there needs to be something else more intangible about the beer and probably cant be quantified in words.

Edit: Nothing should be taken as a knock against IPAs and the IPA trend in general.

mattdee1 said:

Ask 100 mothers why they buy 2 loaves of Wonderbread every week and most of them will probably answer with something along the lines of "because my kids eat lots of sammiches and I go through bread quickly lol."

What they're NOT likely to do is answer with a list of traits that make Wonderbread "good" compared to the other choices. They just need bread--a common household commodity--so they buy a name they recognize and go on with their day.

Click to expand...

I would have answered that "It builds strong bodies 12 ways."

Gawd, I'm old.

ArkotRamathorn said:

Bud Light, eight letters.

Click to expand...

ftfy

mattdee1 said:

What they're NOT likely to do is answer with a list of traits that make Wonderbread "good" compared to the other choices. They just need bread--a common household commodity--so they buy a name they recognize and go on with their day.

Click to expand...

You can dress it up however you want, make analogies to bread, cars, phones, suits. It doesn't matter. Bud Light is good enough to convince millions of people to part with their money every year. You may not like it, you may not agree, but millions of others say you are wrong. Selling any product in a volume like that says that product must be "good".

When trying to define a baseline for "good" on an entirely subjective matter, in my humble opinion, popularity is all you have to work with.

kombat said:

You may not, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the main reasons the BJCP style guidelines were developed was to allow beers to be objectively compared.

Without the style guidelines, it's rather pointless to even attempt to compare beers against each other in terms of quality. You can say you like a beer with a bunch of diacetyl, and therefore it's "good" in your opinion. Maybe I like my hamburgers the way I make them (the secret ingredient is sheep manure!) but you don't particularly care for them. Without an objective set of standards to compare them against, it just becomes entirely personal preference, and no meaningful ranking can be assigned.

Click to expand...

Sure. Obviously there's no denying that the BJCP is a fairly matured organization and a moderately successful attempt at some sort of standardization.


But to say:

"I should also stress that I'm mostly talking about commercial beers here. For homebrewers, there are a well-defined set of standards that the brewer is trying to adhere to (BJCP guidelines). For commerical brewing... style guidelines typically go straight out the window (as they should)."


...in the context of this nebulous philosophical discussion that will reach no conclusion or consensus is to

1) Trip over the very notion of the discussion by implying that with homebrewed beers, it's easy to determine what's good or what's not good, as we have this one set of standards humans came up with, and then humans try to enforce. But in commercial beers, it somehow becomes impossible to determine what is a good beer. (I believe we're no closer or farther away from deciding whether a homebrewed beer is "good" vs. a commercial beer)

2) Overlook that many homebrewers do not give two ****s about BJCP styles towards the end goal of defining their beer as "good". I would argue that the percentage of homebrewers in this bucket is probably about 85-90%. Moreover, the notion that in commercial brewing, style guidelines go out the window (as they should)...heh...I would also argue this is not only much more prominent in homebrewing than commercial brewing, but also is it not true for the larger, more heralded commercial competitions, style guidelines are just as enforced (ex. BA Beer Style Guidelines -> GABF)? Maybe not so in your average everyday hipster Masshole beer blogger's reviews, but...

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread carefully but a very important point seems to have been missed. Good, better and best are judged according to how well something meets some criterion of optimality and you cannot discuss whether something is better than something else without specifying what that criterion is. Some of the posts have mentioned some of the common criteria. When I am carrying on about this I usually list the following though there are doubtless others:

1) You like it
2) Your 'customers' (spouse, friends, mother in law....) like it
3) It is authentic
4) It closely matches some description in some guideline (e.g. BJCP styles)
5) It wins ribbons in contests
6) It sells in high volume at good margin

I heard the following at an investors meeting: "This really isn't a very good Saison but I don't care as long as it sells well." That plainly illustrates a conflict. In terms of 1) it was not good beer. In terms of 6) it was.

Is Mozart better than Bach?

I agree! That is exactly the point. Things that are good have no conceptual criteria that we can accurately point to. We try to define what is good about x beer, for instance. We can assign a million adjectives but none seem to quite capture it. Our adjectives may be in disagreement with others but no one can put their finger on it. There is no objective criteria to help us articulate what we are experiencing correctly. The resulting experience of being at a loss but also very excited about what is going on is what makes us call something good.

To simplify it, our experience goes beyond our ability to understand it.

TheHopfather said:

You can dress it up however you want, make analogies to bread, cars, phones, suits. It doesn't matter. Bud Light is good enough to convince millions of people to part with their money every year. You may not like it, you may not agree, but millions of others say you are wrong. Selling any product in a volume like that says that product must be "good".

When trying to define a baseline for "good" on an entirely subjective matter, in my humble opinion, popularity is all you have to work with.

Click to expand...

'good' is not the same as 'good enough' and 'popular' is not the same as 'good' either.

I might buy a Starbucks coffee, not because it is 'good' (it's burnt and cr*ppy), but because it is convenient (there's one on every corner) and 'good enough' (it has caffeine).

blizz81 said:

Sure. Obviously there's no denying that the BJCP is a fairly matured organization and a moderately successful attempt at some sort of standardization.


But to say:

"I should also stress that I'm mostly talking about commercial beers here. For homebrewers, there are a well-defined set of standards that the brewer is trying to adhere to (BJCP guidelines). For commerical brewing... style guidelines typically go straight out the window (as they should)."


...in the context of this nebulous philosophical discussion that will reach no conclusion or consensus is to

1) Trip over the very notion of the discussion by implying that with homebrewed beers, it's easy to determine what's good or what's not good, as we have this one set of standards humans came up with, and then humans try to enforce. But in commercial beers, it somehow becomes impossible to determine what is a good beer. (I believe we're no closer or farther away from deciding whether a homebrewed beer is "good" vs. a commercial beer)

2) Overlook that many homebrewers do not give two ****s about BJCP styles towards the end goal of defining their beer as "good". I would argue that the percentage of homebrewers in this bucket is probably about 85-90%. Moreover, the notion that in commercial brewing, style guidelines go out the window (as they should)...heh...I would also argue this is not only much more prominent in homebrewing than commercial brewing, but also is it not true for the larger, more heralded commercial competitions, style guidelines are just as enforced (ex. BA Beer Style Guidelines -> GABF)? Maybe not so in your average everyday hipster Masshole beer blogger's reviews, but...

Click to expand...

Not sure I ever said it was easy to determine what is good in homebrewing and impossible to do so for commercial. Nor did I ever say that every homebrewer is dead-set on adhering exactly to style guidelines.

That said... I think adherence to guidelines is dramatically more prevalent within homebrewing. Does that mean everyone is doing it? No, not remotely but I think a fair number of homebrewers are trying to either clone beers or nail down techniques are are specific to styles... at least a huge percentage of all of the homebrewers in my old club were. Maybe we were the exception.

In commercial brewing, I don't think many breweries care at all about guidelines other than when it comes to describing the brewer's intent to the consumer. You typically can't simply make up a beer, call it something nebulous ("Jump Back" is one of our beers) and simply expect people to have any idea what it is. You have to call it something... (in that particular case in IPA) but I don't believe many commercial breweries are intentionally trying to position their beers within any narrow bands of a style guideline. If they make one that does fit and it can go to GABF... awesome... but that's not the goal.

Again... I appreciate that's not the goal of homebrewers either... I just think trying to adhere to style is more prevalent, that's all

BGBC said:

'popular' is not the same as 'good' either.

Click to expand...

It very certainly is if popularity is the criterion of optimality and that seems like a very acceptable criterion to me. It's certainly as valid as some of the others.

The guy who says beer A is better than beer B has made a statement that is meaningless to you unless he tells you what his criterion is. If he does state that then you are in a position to decide if his criterion maps into yours. If it does, his declaration means something to you. If it doesn't, then his declaration is worthless.

If you ask whether beer A is better than beer B you must state what you criterion is or the interrogated person has no way to meaningfully answer your question.

The fact that this mot important aspect has not been even mentioned here means that most people cannot tell you whether beer A is better than beer B but only give you their personal opinion, criterion 1) in my earlier post and that, therefore, most 'reviews' are so much noise.

ajdelange said:

It very certainly is if popularity is the criterion of optimality and that seems like a very acceptable criterion to me. It's certainly as valid as some of the others.

The guy who says beer A is better than beer B has made a statement that is meaningless to you unless he tells you what his criterion is. If he does state that then you are in a position to decide if his criterion maps into yours. If it does, his declaration means something to you. If it doesn't, then his declaration is worthless.

If you ask whether beer A is better than beer B you must state what you criterion is or the interrogated person has no way to meaningfully answer your question.

The fact that this mot important aspect has not been even mentioned here means that most people cannot tell you whether beer A is better than beer B but only give you their personal opinion, criterion 1) in my earlier post and that, therefore, most 'reviews' are so much noise.

Click to expand...

Agree 100% and maybe that's what I'm really trying to figure out... what is the right criteria.

.... and this is where I keep coming back to brewer intent. I think everything else is so wildly subjective, that I don't know that it means anything. Now... someone judging "brewer's intent", of course... that's subjective too but I don't think to the same degree. I think it takes as much of the subjectivity out of the equation as possible.

I think "I'm not a big fan of cascade but I see what the brewer was doing and can appreciate this as a great beer... even though I may not care for it that much."..... I think.... is a much better view than "Stouts suck!"

BGBC said:

'good' is not the same as 'good enough' and 'popular' is not the same as 'good' either.

Click to expand...

Well that is the crux of the problem now isn't it? "Good" was never defined, in fact it seems the entire basis of this thread is trying to define "good". Are you the arbiter of all things "good"?

Everyone can and will define "good beer" differently. Without any set standard I think that popular is as good as, if not better, than any other metric. People just get upset when they hear that Bud Light is "good". Market leaders tend to make a good product for the masses, that may not be good for you, but it is for lots of others.

ajdelange said:

It very certainly is if popularity is the criterion of optimality and that seems like a very acceptable criterion to me. It's certainly as valid as some of the others.

The guy who says beer A is better than beer B has made a statement that is meaningless to you unless he tells you what his criterion is. If he does state that then you are in a position to decide if his criterion maps into yours. If it does, his declaration means something to you. If it doesn't, then his declaration is worthless.

If you ask whether beer A is better than beer B you must state what you criterion is or the interrogated person has no way to meaningfully answer your question.

The fact that this mot important aspect has not been even mentioned here means that most people cannot tell you whether beer A is better than beer B but only give you their personal opinion, criterion 1) in my earlier post and that, therefore, most 'reviews' are so much noise.

Click to expand...

Yet, it seems to me that if we make popularity the criteria we then can only say that many people like something, not that it is good per se. After all, people can be wrong and many can be at the same time. See Bud Light as your example. To say that many people like Bud Light is not the same thing as saying that it is good. It is simply to say that many people like it. The other problem here is that 'good' sneaks in the backdoor, since we have simply decided that the public's opinion on something is what good really is, but how do we know that without knowing what good is?

Cape Brewing said:

I also think it's a really interesting topic

Click to expand...

Not really. Taste is subjective. BJCP judges get together and skew their own personal results in order to come to a more common score. Lots of people have told me that Bell's Hopslam is one of the best IPA's out there, but I think it sucks and I won't drink it. Are they right? Am I right? Yes. We are both right.

Popularity in this case is correlated to how many people vote on a beer with their money. The only way this measure is valid is if all the beer costs the same. I would wager that if bud light cost 8.99 a six pack that there would be a lot of converts to craft beer. It is popular because it is good enough and significantly cheaper, but not because it is the best (gooderest gooderer) beer.

LandoLincoln said:

Not really. Taste is subjective. BJCP judges get together and skew their own personal results in order to come to a more common score. Lots of people have told me that Bell's Hopslam is one of the best IPA's out there, but I think it sucks and I won't drink it. Are they right? Am I right? Yes. We are both right.

Click to expand...

But by that logic... everyone's opinion and therefore, all of the "rankings", "ratings", hype, etc is all completely meaningless since any one beer can be great and suck at the same time.

.... and I think that's part of my point... The way beer is "rated", I think, is meaningless. Like I was saying before, i don't know what good and bad mean.... because there is no criteria set for that judgement.

I think craft beer overall would benefit from some sort of criteria being set opposed to the alternative... Which is all that opinion and effort being meaningless.

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.

Cape Brewing said:

But by that logic... everyone's opinion and therefore, all of the "rankings", "ratings", hype, etc is all completely meaningless since any one beer can be great and suck at the same time.

Click to expand...

I think you're onto something.

TheHopfather said:

Are you the arbiter of all things "good"?

Click to expand...

Yes, inasmuch as you are as well, since the definition is clearly subjective.

But don't mess with me, or I'll slice you

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.[/QUOTE]

Great thread by the way!

I do believe there is. Many people have thought I'm a loon for the point I'm about to make but hear me out.

I think we go about everything backwards when we consider matters of taste. We try to setup conceptual criteria to classify an experience, e.g., bjcp judging and beer and then stamp them on the experience. What I think we should do instead is deem those things, beers, good that defy our ability to classify them on the level of thought but are still highly pleasing. That way we recognize thought has reached its limit through our experience of the beer. If those highly familiar with beer cannot conceptually articulate what is going on when they drink a beer but are pleased nonetheless, it is a good beer.

We are familiar with this sort of idea already. We often say "Ah! There is nothing like this beer!" by which we mean this beer is very good.

Cape Brewing said:

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

jlinz said:

If those highly familiar with beer cannot conceptually articulate what is going on when they drink a beer but are pleased nonetheless, it is a good beer.

Click to expand...

So by that logic, a beer that is a classic example of any given defined style is not a good beer, because people highly familiar with beer can clearly articulate what they are tasting?

jlinz said:

We are familiar with this sort of idea already. We often say "Ah! There is nothing like this beer!" by which we mean this beer is very good.

Click to expand...

Unless there's nothing like it because it's a sh*tty beer.

BGBC said:

So by that logic, a beer that is a classic example of any given defined style is not a good beer, because people highly familiar with beer can clearly articulate what they are tasting?



Unless there's nothing like it because it's a sh*tty beer.

Click to expand...

It can be a good beer, but just because it matches the guidelines does not make it so. I imagine many match the guidelines.

****ty beer is similar. It is an experience of revulsion that defies categorization.

Well eventually robots will just do all the tasting for us anyway

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/22/this-robot-tastes-better-than-a-wine-critic/

Does anyone know how they do it in the wine world?

I would agree that beer ranking sites are dumb. I'm still looking for that horse blanket beer I've read so much about, it's my whale. If you enjoy drinking a beer it is good. Don't get hung up on the rankings. I managed to get a couple of Westy 12's home with me from Europe this summer, opened one on Christmas. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

BGBC said:

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

Click to expand...

Yes and a brewer can bring the same beer to all 4 and not get the same score.
One could be best of show at one judging and not even crack the top five at another.

Since you were talking about brewers intent I think a recent score sheet I got back is relevant to the discussion.

Entered a beer into British Brown Ale category even though I knew stylistically it was missing some major aspects, but it was the closest category I could select (it was brown, made with British yeast, and mostly British ingredients).

By the score I got (30) you could say its not a good beer. Though on the other hand if you look further there were not any major flaws with the beer, just stylistically out of guideline. Not hoppy enough, and a little too much carbonation, and because of the lack of hops it tended more towards the sweet side of a brown ale. So I could be down on myself and think I made a bad beer, but I was intending to clone the Rogue Hazelnut Nectar brown ale and I accomplished it rather well I thought, the hazelnut wasn't strong enough in my opinion to enter as a clone beer(and will be one of my wedding beers I brew).

Then again just because I brewed what I intended to brew doesn't mean I deserve a medal in competition. Also fits into the "I'll drink another" category of being a "good" beer.

BGBC said:

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

Click to expand...

Again... that's why I continuously go back to brewer's intent. I don't think it is a perfect solution by any stretch but I don't know of a better one.

Cape Brewing said:

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.

Click to expand...

BGBC said:

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

Click to expand...

jschein said:

Yes and a brewer can bring the same beer to all 4 and not get the same score.
One could be best of show at one judging and not even crack the top five at another.

Click to expand...

Sooo, we're in agreement then?

Cape Brewing said:

Again... that's why I continuously go back to brewer's intent. I don't think it is a perfect solution by any stretch but I don't know of a better one.

Click to expand...

But a brewer could modify their stated 'intent' after the beer is actually brewed, similar to how a homebrewer could submit a 'bad' IPA (original intent) into the BJCP American Amber category (actual outcome) and have it be judged as a 'good' beer.

BGBC said:

But a brewer could modify their stated 'intent' after the beer is actually brewed, similar to how a homebrewer could submit a 'bad' IPA (original intent) into the BJCP American Amber category (actual outcome) and have it be judged as a 'good' beer.

Click to expand...

Good point... Hadn't thought of that..

yes but you can't have it both ways.

either you're asking for what aj describes, a strict set of criteria which beer is to be measured, or you're asking people for their feelings.

i personally think comparing beer to wine in this situation isn't very useful. in terms of this discussion, if you really think this is useful (I don't), in my opinion it might be easier to relate it to the gastronomy industry.

In cooking, there's basics. if i ask you to make an omelet in the french tradition, we all know what to expect. it's a very specific outcome. a chef may take some minor artistic licenses but if he strays to far from the model it won't be a french omelet anymore. There's a lot of "gourmet" food that isn't universally liked. Similar to your cantillon example, you can sit someone down in front of Jiro Ono, but if that guy happens to not like fish, he's not going to really care for the meal.

Why don't I think this is useful? I don't really know what the point is. And i don't mean to be negative for negative's sake, but there's enough "competitions" to fill the need, and I personally believe people should drink what they like. I get the whole "brewers intent" angle, and even as homebrewers we all sometimes get this. But what are your goals? Sure, you dream up a beer, brew it exactly as you planned, it turns out good, and you're happy. Then your buddy goes "eh, don't really like it" or "it's not my style". Ok, so what? Are you not going to brew it again?

Commercially it's a different angle but the mindset is the same. Your goals are (probably) different.

Maybe the definition of a good beer is simpler than we are digging at.

Question 1: Does the beer taste like vomit/band-aids/chemical/plastic/gasoline?

Answer: No.

Conclusion: Beer is probably good.

Answer: Yes.

Conclusion: Beer is not good.

If you literally cannot drink anymore because it tastes like vomit, then that's definitely a bad beer. Other kinds of off flavors, like diacetyl are not desirable in some beers, but is desirable in others.

So yes, Bud Light can be considered "good" beer by this measure. It might be watery and flavorless, and give you ultra-beer-farts the next day if you drink a dozen of them, but its not disgusting and making you throw up (unless you drink two dozen of them).

Cape Brewing said:

Good point... Hadn't thought of that..

Click to expand...

I'll quit while I'm ahead then

ArkotRamathorn said:

Maybe the definition of a good beer is simpler than we are digging at.

Question 1: Does the beer taste like vomit/band-aids/chemical/plastic/gasoline?

Answer: No.

Conclusion: Beer is probably good.

Answer: Yes.

Conclusion: Beer is not good.

If you literally cannot drink anymore because it tastes like vomit, then that's definitely a bad beer. Other kinds of off flavors, like diacetyl are not desirable in some beers, but is desirable in others.

So yes, Bud Light can be considered "good" beer by this measure. It might be watery and flavorless, and give you ultra-beer-farts the next day if you drink a dozen of them, but its not disgusting and making you throw up (unless you drink two dozen of them).

Click to expand...

Not..going...to drag me....back...in

motobrewer said:

yes but you can't have it both ways.

either you're asking for what aj describes, a strict set of criteria which beer is to be measured, or you're asking people for their feelings.
.

Click to expand...

I disagree... Only because of the example i was giving before. I'll give another one. I recently was given a "Bob Marleywine" to taste. It was a big barleywine "spiced" with exactly what the name would suggest.

It was a really "good beer" in my view... meaning I knew what he was trying to accomplish.. the beer was nice and clean, no technical issues at all. The "spice" was subtle on the finish... didn't smash you in the face.

That's sure as hell not up to any style guideline I've ever seen and, personally, that's not a flavor I like in a beer... but i told him it was a beautifully made beer, even though I wasn't a big fan... because I believed it was.

As I'm typing and thinking about it... maybe that's the question... can you have a beautifully made beer that is "bad"?

I think I would argue "no". If it is made perfectly, then I would argue that "your" personal taste in not liking it doesn't matter. You can certainly not like it... nothing wrong with that... but i don't think that in itself makes it "bad"