Pschof
Well-Known Member
From another thread:
I am curious what other people think about this. I tend to think that arguing about the merits and demerits of beer has its value, so long as you say more than "I like it" or "I don't." For instance, when I say something good about a beer, I don't just mean "I like it" but something more like: "There is something to be appreciated about this beer."
As an example, some people hate Midas Touch and complain that it is way too sweet. My response is usually that you need to be in the right mood. It isn't the same thing you would want on a hot day in the late afternoon after mowing a lawn. But treat it like an after dinner drink-- maybe as a dessert. Getting in that frame of mind can allow a lot of people to appreciate what is good about it.
Or some people complain about other DogFish Head stuff that they are just throwing random ingredients together without regard for taste. My response is to explain what I like about various beers. For instance, Palo Santo Marron has that crazy Palo Santo wood. I like it because it gives it this very rich vanilla favor without having to put tons of chocolate malt in it. So it ends up being a brown that has vanilla character, which I like.
I've changed my opinions about IPAs because of the way people describe them. At first they all tasted to me like just a bunch of random hops were thrown in. Some still taste like that to me, but I have others that I like now (DFH 90, Harpoon, HopDevil).
Anyway, I guess this is a defense of arguing about beer a little, rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying "it is all a matter of taste." Of course, eventually we'll hit bedrock and some people will just find some things gross. But maybe we shouldn't think we've hit bedrock too quickly.
I am curious what other people think about this. I tend to think that arguing about the merits and demerits of beer has its value, so long as you say more than "I like it" or "I don't." For instance, when I say something good about a beer, I don't just mean "I like it" but something more like: "There is something to be appreciated about this beer."
As an example, some people hate Midas Touch and complain that it is way too sweet. My response is usually that you need to be in the right mood. It isn't the same thing you would want on a hot day in the late afternoon after mowing a lawn. But treat it like an after dinner drink-- maybe as a dessert. Getting in that frame of mind can allow a lot of people to appreciate what is good about it.
Or some people complain about other DogFish Head stuff that they are just throwing random ingredients together without regard for taste. My response is to explain what I like about various beers. For instance, Palo Santo Marron has that crazy Palo Santo wood. I like it because it gives it this very rich vanilla favor without having to put tons of chocolate malt in it. So it ends up being a brown that has vanilla character, which I like.
I've changed my opinions about IPAs because of the way people describe them. At first they all tasted to me like just a bunch of random hops were thrown in. Some still taste like that to me, but I have others that I like now (DFH 90, Harpoon, HopDevil).
Anyway, I guess this is a defense of arguing about beer a little, rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying "it is all a matter of taste." Of course, eventually we'll hit bedrock and some people will just find some things gross. But maybe we shouldn't think we've hit bedrock too quickly.
