Are u irritated by complex recipes like i am?

My biggest peeve (think there was a thread or 12 about this already) is adding all sorts of "stuff". Do we need a peanut-butter bacon raspberry coffee mint 300 IBU lagered wheat pale porter.(served with a kiwi slice of course)

I don't mind a number of grains and hops in one brew. Some are great, some not, but I think many of us try from time to time for that special brew that will blow everyone away. I love my all Centennial, and all Citra brews, but like my Pliny clone with all it's hops and grains just as much.

Personally, I focus on my brewing technique and consistency. 1 grain or 10 grains....If your process from grinding to carbing isn't sound, you never know what you'll get.

How is that comment negative? Quite the opposite I think.

Brewitt said:

Yooper, not to be a contrarian here but.... while I fully agree with you on your justification of complex hops, where desired, I beg to differ with your comment on malt. I love simplicity in an IPA malt bill but I also brew an "Old Rasputin" clone that has 4 roasted malts (Chocolate, Roasted Barley, Brown Malt and Caramel 120). Throw in a couple others in addition to base malt and about 100 IBU of hops and you have a complex bitter chocolate coffee flavor that is amazing. This is one of my favorite recipes. It sounds crazy but it reproduces the malt profile of Old Rasputin. Have I tried it without all the malts? No. Would I bother, probably not. Just my $0.02. Do what works for you.

Click to expand...

Caramel 120 isn't a roasted malt, it's a crystal malt. Roasted Barley is also not a roasted malt, as the barley is not malted before roasting.

I don't know a whole lot about brown malt, but from what I've read it also isn't a roasted malt. At least, I believe that it is still able to self-convert, for example, which no actual roasted malt can do.


So, your clone actually only has one roasted malt in it.

weirdboy said:

Caramel 120 isn't a roasted malt, it's a crystal malt. Roasted Barley is also not a roasted malt, as the barley is not malted before roasting.

I don't know a whole lot about brown malt, but from what I've read it also isn't a roasted malt. At least, I believe that it is still able to self-convert, for example, which no actual roasted malt can do.


So, your clone actually only has one roasted malt in it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Interesting point. It seems technically correct. But isn't the contribution of a chocolate malt similar to a crystal 120 but more roasted? Yes, crystal 120 is roasted differently but it is essentially a less roasted malt. I understand that roasted barley is not malted so technically is not a malt so it is less converted and less fermentable. But flavor wise it makes similar contributions to chocolate malt but more so. Brown malt is a lot like a base malt but is roasted to 50-70L. Probably not really qualified as a roasted malt but I'm not sure where the cutoff for roasted is.

pohldogg said:

I think these crazy recipes are the downside of brewing software. Being able to design any combination and have a model of the outcome is where these overly complex things come from. The simpler the better, most pro beers, and many of the highly rated ones, are super simple with just a few grains and hops in easy to manage proportions.

Click to expand...

My experience is that pro beers are no less complex than most homebrewers beers are when you actually get the recipes, and sometimes, particularly in hopping schedules, are far more complicated due to the fact that pro breweries aren't as limited on hop quantities or varieties.

I personally try to limit my grains in recipes I make up to 5 unless there's some obvious reason to go higher or the recipe calls for it. I don't mean that as some kind of hard cap on grain contributions or anything, I just mean that if I'm fooling around in Beersmith and the number of grains is over 5, I'm usually screwing around without any real direction. I've never actually put more than 3 varieties of hops in a beer, but I've seen some pro and pro-derived recipes that have 6 or 7.

Hmm, I wonder if I could get Mash Slinger under my name....

I don't usually bother with complex recipes. They don't bother me, but if I see to many ingredients I'm not going to try and follow the recipe.

I prefer to read several recipes that finish in the same ball park as what I want, and then setup my own based on what is at hand. I find doing a little comparative analyses of the recipe's will give you a good grasp of the essentials for something. Once you have that you can take or leave the more complicate or unusual bits.

I will ferment anything that can be fermented, but I take good notes so I don't end up with mystery brews. One of my favorites is a blueberry wine that I made a last minute addition to and ended up really messing up the OG of. It came out so well I picked up the same stuff that was in the "mistake" batch and am planning on making more.

The beauty of homebrew: if you don't like don't do it.

Scallops with salt, pepper and a perfect sear is heavenly. Simple.

Scallops with salt, pepper and a perfect sear in a white bean puree on a bed of peppery arugala is also heavenly. Complex with dimensions.

Brewitt said:

Hmmm. Interesting point. It seems technically correct. But isn't the contribution of a chocolate malt similar to a crystal 120 but more roasted? Yes, crystal 120 is roasted differently but it is essentially a less roasted malt. I understand that roasted barley is not malted so technically is not a malt so it is less converted and less fermentable. But flavor wise it makes similar contributions to chocolate malt but more so. Brown malt is a lot like a base malt but is roasted to 50-70L. Probably not really qualified as a roasted malt but I'm not sure where the cutoff for roasted is.

Click to expand...

Crystal 120L is a wholly different beast than the "roasted" malts. It's flavor contribution has a little bit of roast undertone, but is mostly adding dark-fruit notes, with some bittersweetness. A little bit adds a lot of depth, and doesn't really overlap with chocolate malt or roasted barley or any of those (there might be a little overlap between C120° and Special B).

Whether it's technically "roasted" or not isn't (to me) interesting; it adds wholly different characteristics to a beer, IMO adding more complexity than mixing black patent with roasted barley and chocolate malt, for example.

A good Oaxacan mole sauce has 25-30 ingredients and all are necessary to achieve the desired results. One uses only the ingredients needed to achieve the finished product that was envisioned

whitehause said:

My biggest peeve (think there was a thread or 12 about this already) is adding all sorts of "stuff". Do we need a peanut-butter bacon raspberry coffee mint 300 IBU lagered wheat pale porter.(served with a kiwi slice of course)

Click to expand...

LOL this reminds me of DFH.

I think I fall into the more simple category. My philosophy is that beer is about making the greatest flavor with the least about of ingredients. Sometimes recipes need a few of malts and hops, sometimes not. After a certain number of ingredients, you won't be able to taste the subtleties.

OldDirty said:

I've been reading a few too many posts on here and have come to the conclusion that some folks here fall into a few categories.

Beer Engineers - All science and no artistic creativity. To me these are the folks that will do what the OP stated. Minute additions to a grain and hop bill that in their mathematical calculations will be the be all end all of beers. I honestly don't see adding 37.86g of 200* toasted maris otter into a grain bill and tasting or feeling the results. Over complication for complications sake.
Hipster Beer Cooks - All artistic creativity and no science for the sake of a fad. Granted the idea of throwing a grain and hop bill together to see what sticks is nice but 200+ IBU maple flavored bacon beer is a bit silly IMHO. If it floats your boat that's dandy but not very inviting.
Beer Recipe Fundamentalists - So it is written, so it shall be done! No deviation from the recipe no matter what happens. They will wait weeks for the properly denoted type of grain to arrive and not let "themselves" into the recipe.
Mash Slingers - The "if I got the grain on hand it goes in the recipe, whip up a batch and run with it" brewer. I like that a lot but the lack of repeatability is often the victim of some great beers.
Beer Chefs- The tastes are so refined they miss out on the basics at times. Don't get me wrong I love subtlety in beers but I'm not looking for subtle mint chocolate and citrus taste when I'm swinging a hammer.
Beer Crafting - Something I think we all strive to be but get caught up in the other categories. Relax, think about it a bit, then make it. If it works great, if not adapt and overcome.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of an interview John Palmer gave a while back. He talked about how when he started brewing people fell under two camps: Dave Miller or Charlie Papazian. Dave Miller fans were more scientific in their approach (Beer Engineers as you call them), while Papazian fans were all about RDWHAHB.

I'm much more of a Papazian guy. I really value and enjoy simplicity. I really enjoy cooking, and have found that simpler recipes often produced better results. My approach to brewing has been the same: simple process, simple recipes. It has worked very well for me.

Nothing against people who prefer to be more technical. If that's what they enjoy then more power to them. But if brewing were as complicated as they make it out to be, I'd have lost interest in it a long time ago.

niquejim said:

A good Oaxacan mole sauce has 25-30 ingredients and all are necessary to achieve the desired results. One uses only the ingredients needed to achieve the finished product that was envisioned

Click to expand...

I just read that as "A good OxyClean mole sauce". Can you tell that I have cleaning on the brain?

Leadgolem said:

Hmm, I wonder if I could get Mash Slinger under my name....

I don't usually bother with complex recipes. They don't bother me, but if I see to many ingredients I'm not going to try and follow the recipe.

I prefer to read several recipes that finish in the same ball park as what I want, and then setup my own based on what is at hand. I find doing a little comparative analyses of the recipe's will give you a good grasp of the essentials for something. Once you have that you can take or leave the more complicate or unusual bits.

I will ferment anything that can be fermented, but I take good notes so I don't end up with mystery brews. One of my favorites is a blueberry wine that I made a last minute addition to and ended up really messing up the OG of. It came out so well I picked up the same stuff that was in the "mistake" batch and am planning on making more.

Click to expand...

This is great point, kinda what i was hoping to hear. Or is it "hopping to hear" probably hopping.

Leadgolem said:

I will ferment anything that can be fermented, but I take good notes so I don't end up with mystery brews. One of my favorites is a blueberry wine that I made a last minute addition to and ended up really messing up the OG of. It came out so well I picked up the same stuff that was in the "mistake" batch and am planning on making more.

Click to expand...

Mind posting this recipe? Was it a blueberry ale or wine? Just thinking about what late addition could mess with OG unless its something like honey or simple like to much top up water.

To the OP. Look for shultz/hebrew brewing 16th anni ale.
16 malts 16 hops. I didnt think there was a line till i saw this one.

I guarentee no one would be able to pin point each hop and malt, it just comes down to a mess or so little of a certain malt/hop its undistinguishable and thus pointless...

Im a big fan of crazy beers with this and that as long as i can taste and see what i used to make it "unique".

To the 4.56oz additions im sure its just a conversion mistake from a larger recipe. I always round up or down to compensate. Althought i have heard people changing a recipe to 10pds 2-row to 10.5pds 2-row and claiming a difference? Is there? Who knows more power to the scientists on here brewing.

I may just be overly cynical, but the more I think about it the weird recipes that get to me are the ones that seem to be cutting corners through the use of software. Like adding 2 oz of c120 to avoid a pond of c40. Or .7 oz warrior for 98 minutes becasue it's cheaper than 3 oz cascade. There's nothing wrong with lots of ingredients when there's a point, but lots of these recipes just seem pointless. Not pointing fingers at this group, just an observation from local converstions and judging.

just in the Recipe/Ingredients section and someone asked for critique on their IPA

first ingredient: 13 lbs 9.2 oz Pale Malt (2 Row)
maybe he's that dialed-in to his equipment/technique that 2/10 of an oz of 2-row makes a difference?

plus he's got 2 oz of a hop at 5 minutes, then 1.83 oz of the same hop at FO.
seriously? .17 of an oz is a going to make or break the recipe? what is that, ONE pellet?

can't tweak a recipe to ¼lbs of grains and ¼oz of hops?

germanmade84 said:

I have seen a million recipes that include things like 1/4 oz additions of cara munich or 1/25 oz addition of simcoe at 34.5 mins of boil?

Click to expand...

It's usually just a red flag for inexperience. That type of brewer needs more knowledge about the ingredients they are using. In some cases, they are just getting rid of their inventory, but they usually say this in the opener.

/ End thread

GrogNerd said:

just in the Recipe/Ingredients section and someone asked for critique on their IPA

first ingredient: 13 lbs 9.2 oz Pale Malt (2 Row)
maybe he's that dialed-in to his equipment/technique that 2/10 of an oz of 2-row makes a difference?

plus he's got 2 oz of a hop at 5 minutes, then 1.83 oz of the same hop at FO.
seriously? .17 of an oz is a going to make or break the recipe? what is that, ONE pellet?

can't tweak a recipe to ¼lbs of grains and ¼oz of hops?

Click to expand...

... I'd guess that it's what he or she has in inventory. Probably trying to design a recipe around the 13#, 9.2 ounces of pale malt and 3.83 ounces of that hop that they already own.

Sometimes you see weird numbers when someone's converted over from metric, too. Doesn't seem to be the case here, though.

In the end... RDWHAHB. Why does it matter?

I like it all! I view brewing beer as an extension of cooking food. I love to see the seemingly infinite variety of beers that come from four basic categories.

As a brand new all-grain brewer though, I must admit that I am sticking to a few batches of SMaSH to get my process down, then try brewing a few batches of other people's good recipes. As for the complex recipes, I personally, do not understand what all the ingredients do so I would not even attempt to create a complex recipe with examples as the OP used. But I wouldn't say it bothers me or anything. If it makes good beer in the end then more power to the brewer!

the_bird said:

Why does it matter?

Click to expand...

for mocking purposes only.

I can almost guarantee though, by knocking off the decimal in whatever recipe software he's using, the OG, color and ABV won't budge.
and that .17 won't effect the IBU, not at FO.

and it is 11:15am here in LoCo VA. it is way past time to RDWHAHB, but I have 18 days left of bottle conditioning

GrogNerd said:

for mocking purposes only.

I can almost guarantee though, by knocking off the decimal in whatever recipe software he's using, the OG, color and ABV won't budge.
and that .17 won't effect the IBU, not at FO.

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing that you'd never notice the difference.

The "mocking" part, though.. I mean, c'mon.

I too tend toward the simpler side of the spectrum. I like grain bills and hop schedules where I can really taste every additional piece that's added to the recipe.

But, depending on the beer, that could easily be four or five different grains. How can you make an oatmeal stout without including (at the very minimum) a base malt, a roasted, and some flaked oats? Add in a crystal for some sweetness and that's four fermentables right there, for a relatively simple stout grainbill. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Hop schedules are the same way. Would I have four (or six) different hop varieties or additions for the stout I just described? No way. But I did hop the IPA I brewed this weekend four different times, and will dry-hop it in a couple of weeks when I secondary. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the beer.

I might agree with the general sentiment that the relationship between complexity of recipe and the marginal benefits of complexity is inverse (as complexity increases, the value of additional complexity gets smaller), but there are plenty of good reasons to add that fifth type of malt to your grain bill, or to pair the one bittering hop with two different flavor/aroma hops. It's all about what you want to accomplish.

And, even if the "complexer is better" crowd were indisputably wrong, why stress over it? Frankly, I like chatting with y'all about brewing, but as long as I'm happy with my beer I couldn't care less how everyone else decides to make theirs.

Cheers!

GrogNerd

French: From grognard (“grumbler&#8221, from grogner (“snarl, grunt, growl, grumble&#8221 + -ard

also Spanish: gruñon

literally, it means "grumbler" but also used as "mean old man"

the_bird said:

Crystal 120L is a wholly different beast than the "roasted" malts. It's flavor contribution has a little bit of roast undertone, but is mostly adding dark-fruit notes, with some bittersweetness. A little bit adds a lot of depth, and doesn't really overlap with chocolate malt or roasted barley or any of those (there might be a little overlap between C120° and Special B).

Whether it's technically "roasted" or not isn't (to me) interesting; it adds wholly different characteristics to a beer, IMO adding more complexity than mixing black patent with roasted barley and chocolate malt, for example.

Click to expand...

Correct, but I was just lumping them together in terms of roastiness of flavor. Then I was corrected based upon a technical point. Now you are taking me back to differences in there contribution to flavor. I think my point was that different malts with different degrees of roastiness and conversion produce more complex flavor profiles. I'm happy to leave it at that. But it did prompt me to take a closer look at the precise relationships between the different malting/roasting processes which is educational and helps my understanding of brewing. So, thanks for the input.

Johnnyhitch1 said:

Mind posting this recipe? Was it a blueberry ale or wine? Just thinking about what late addition could mess with OG unless its something like honey or simple like to much top up water.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a wine. I had read some comments by people having trouble with higher abv recipes and blueberries. The basic idea was to see if there was something endemic to blueberries that was causing off flavors at higher abv targets. I hadn't planned on adding the syrup, but I have several other kinds of syrups and didn't particularly need another one cluttering up my kitchen. I know the name is lame, but I haven't thought of anything that's right for the recipe yet.

Blueberry Wine
Batch Size: About 1 gallon.
OG: 1.160
FG: 1.020
ABV 18.7%

In primary:
1 qt rw knudsen just blueberry.
1 bottle mama's choice whole blueberry syrup. I can't find the bottle, but it was about 12 oz.
About 1.3 lb of sugar. I didn't actually weigh my sugar first, so this is estimated.
1 tsp dry distillers yeast.
1 tsp yeast nutrient.
1/2 tsp yeast energizer.

In secondary:
1/2 tsp powdered bentonite.
2 old pennies

Here are my actual notes:

my notes said:

10-27-2012 10:00 pm: Mixed up blueberry wine. 1 qt rw knudsen just blueberry. 1 bottle mama's choice whole blueberry syrup. About 1.3lb sugar. Gravity 1.16. Higher then I intended. Syrup has corn syrup in it. Probably won't ferment dry.

11-11-2012 12:00 am: FG 1.020 18.7%. Funny smell to it, reminds me of the weirdness from the cherry limeade. Kinda nasty muskiness. Added 1/2 tsp bentonite. Split into 2 bottles, needed the 1 gallon jug.

11-12-2012 11:30 pm: Funny smell still present. Probably H2S. Added an old penny to both bottles. Shook them like hell. Smell is gone. Awesomeness. Will let these settle out again and bottle. Stuck in fridge to cold crash.

11-22-2012 7:00 pm: Bottled 1/2 blueberry wine 4 12oz bottles.

Click to expand...

I always use yeast energizer and yeast nutrient when I make wine or cider, I only make notes about it if I'm using amounts that are different from my standard setup. The same goes for the yeast.

I drank the other 2 quarts of this after it had settled in my mini fridge. I was for about 3 days off of it.

Doing this again I would probably use 1 1/2 tsp of yeast nutrient, that would probably take care of the H2S issue.

I was aiming for 1.1 and had planned to use a champagne yeast. When I saw how high the OG actually was I decided I'd better use a yeast with a higher alcohol tolerance or the end product was going to be disgustingly sweet.

Distillers yeast is also the least fussy yeast I've ever used, and I didn't feel like making a starter.

I do not believe that there is anything about blueberries/blueberry juice that is causing off flavors. It is more likely that they simply don't contain some nutrient the yeast needs, so the yeast is becoming cannibalistic.

No. Not at all. I have bigger things to be annoyed by and regardless of the recipe I am usually left to tweak it to my brewhouse anyway.

I don't much care how other people brew. Lately I've been scaling back to simpler recipes to make sure I'm nailing down my ability to make a good tasting, clean, intentional beer--one that comes out exactly as planned.

There's nothing like enjoying an incredible beer, then learning that the recipe is stupid simple.

On the other hand, there's nothing like drinking a deep, complex ale and trying to decipher everything that's going on in there.

I'm thinking that there's a time and a place for both, at least in my book.

I'm a lot more bothered by poor spelling or grammar than I am by complex, multiple-ingredient recipes.

I have a recipe for Dark Mild that uses seven different specialty grains. All of them in small quantities. Why? It gives me a more complex flavor profile than simply using a single crystal malt plus chocolate malt. And I want my dark mild to taste complex, not simple and thin.

But I don't think that I need to put 7 specialty grains into every recipe I craft.

P.S. per the list of stereotypes posted earlier in this thread, I am of the "Mash Slinger" variety.

plus he's got 2 oz of a hop at 5 minutes, then 1.83 oz of the same hop at FO.
seriously? .17 of an oz is a going to make or break the recipe? what is that, ONE pellet?

Click to expand...

At least on my digital scale, I find that one pellet is 0.05oz. So 0.17oz would be about three pellets.
I use three pellets when I brew a yeast starter.
No real point... just coincidental observation.

Chriso said:

I'm a lot more bothered by poor spelling or grammar than I am by complex, multiple-ingredient recipes.

Click to expand...

Amen to that! It's painful trying to read or respond to any post when it reads something like:

"I'm not sure what to do i brewed a stout this saturday mashed at 158 and used notty it hasn't started fermenting yet it's been 3 days should i pitch another packet of yeast it's sitting at ambient temp of 68 in my basement right now i really don't know why i haven't seen any airlock activity yet"


Not saying this in a holier-than-thou way, but it just hurts my brain having to read that kind of stuff.

*Shrug* I couldn't really care less. The beauty of brewing is that it's one of those things that can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be.

I'm at the point where I can make up a fairly simple extract recipe on Hopville and brew a decent beer from it, yet there are kit-only brewers I know that when I tell them that, they look at me like I'm talking particle physics. On the other hand, I see some of the really elaborate AG recipes on here and think "yikes."

As long as you're making a beer that you're happy drinking, that's the important thing.

Chriso said:

At least on my digital scale, I find that one pellet is 0.05oz. So 0.17oz would be about three pellets.
I use three pellets when I brew a yeast starter.
No real point... just coincidental observation.

Click to expand...

at that scale, I could see where 3 pellets would make a difference.

wait...

you HOP your starter?
that's a first; I'm a n00b and have never heard that before

For the record, there is NO reason to hop a starter.

jerrodm said:

For the record, there is NO reason to hop a starter.

Click to expand...

haha... just effin' with me? maybe it's a 1L batch and he misspoke?

No mis-speak here. I hop my starters. As mentioned, barely hopped at all, but I do. Basically pursuing the idea that you want your yeast to "grow up" eating foods as close to what they'll eat in their adult life plus you get a very mild disinfectant quality to boot. Zero sources to give you, it's just something I've done since I started in '07. (That said, I tend to very rarely make starters in the first place, I'm more frequently one of those chuck-the-packet-of-dry-yeast-in-without-even-hydrating-it people.)

This thread ( https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/hops-yeast-starter-2013/ ) seems to back up your position of 'it doesn't matter'. I just happen to have an open bag of high-AA Sorachi Ace from many, many brew days ago, that is in a ziploc and not a vacuum bag. So it's easy to open, pinch three pellets, and shut it again. (Of course, the sack is probably gone cheesy by now, it's been open for at least a year.)

I want to say that Uncle Charlie told us to hop our starters back in the day with Complete Joy of Homebrewing. The idea being (I guess) that a little hops will block lacto from forming in the starter maybe?

I usually do Real Wort Starters, diluted to near 1.040 if necessary, but occasionally if I'm boiling up some DME for a starter, I'll throw in some mystery pellets from the freezer. Superstition maybe.

Chriso said:

No mis-speak here. I hop my starters. As mentioned, barely hopped at all, but I do. Basically pursuing the idea that you want your yeast to "grow up" eating foods as close to what they'll eat in their adult life plus you get a very mild disinfectant quality to boot. Zero sources to give you, it's just something I've done since I started in '07. (That said, I tend to very rarely make starters in the first place, I'm more frequently one of those chuck-the-packet-of-dry-yeast-in-without-even-hydrating-it people.)

This thread ( https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/hops-yeast-starter-2013/ ) seems to back up your position of 'it doesn't matter'. I just happen to have an open bag of high-AA Sorachi Ace from many, many brew days ago, that is in a ziploc and not a vacuum bag. So it's easy to open, pinch three pellets, and shut it again. (Of course, the sack is probably gone cheesy by now, it's been open for at least a year.)

Click to expand...

the reasoning is sound, I had just never heard of that before. I am heading to the "What did you learn today?" threads

and I just used Sorachi Ace for the first time as a dry hop in my AIPA. Hard to believe completely flat beer could taste so good. I almost didn't want to bottle it, just wanted to drink it all right then. the next 18 days will be torture

There's a rich beauty to simple beers. The pinnacle of achievement in my mind is Duvel.
One malt,
Two hop additions. One at 75 min, one at 30 min.
Dextrose.

Now the fermentation is anything but simple, but their inputs are Amazing. Surly Hell is another simple, clean beer.

Nothing wrong with a complex beer at all. But I love a beer that blows you away with its simplicity. Especially when you open one and think "my god how did they do this?" Then to discover its a one sentence recipe.

Sierra Pale Ale is another one. What a fantastic beer with a simple recipe.

Yes.

No, I love some mogul madness

highgravitybacon said:

There's a rich beauty to simple beers. The pinnacle of achievement in my mind is Duvel.
One malt,
Two hop additions. One at 75 min, one at 30 min.
Dextrose.

Now the fermentation is anything but simple, but their inputs are Amazing. Surly Hell is another simple, clean beer.

Nothing wrong with a complex beer at all. But I love a beer that blows you away with its simplicity. Especially when you open one and think "my god how did they do this?" Then to discover its a one sentence recipe.

Sierra Pale Ale is another one. What a fantastic beer with a simple recipe.

Click to expand...

Agree with this--there's something beautiful about a beer with simple ingredients where the process really shines through. I think about my weissenbocks, that get the traditional triple decoction treatment and oh boy, are they amazing...complex, huge mouthfeel, spicy. And they've got (usually) two types of grain, one hop addition, and that's all.

Again, not to say this is the ONLY thing that's worthwhile in making beer. That RIS with several different layers of crystal and roasted flavor, plus flaked oats, with a complex hop schedule, plus vanilla bourbon soaked oak chips, is also a revelation of flavors, aromas and texture. There are many roads to the promised land, brothers and sisters!