History of the Crappy American Lager

http://www.basicbrewing.com/radio/

NOV 30, 2006

Very interesting. I thought the move from "big beer" to "small beer" because of the diet was the most interesting. Basically the theory goes that germans viewed beer as a part of the diet and americans didn't want such a big, filling beer. So they came up with the corn, rice lager we have today.

I think it has much more to do with cheap. Americans love cheap. I don't by the diet concept, since Americans mainly consider beer as a way of getting drunk. It's not even classified as food legally. Nutritional information that is required on food, is not allowed to be printed on beer containers.

Two words, twice: American Lager, cheap drunk.

david_42 said:

Nutritional information that is required on food, is not allowed to be printed on beer containers.

Click to expand...

I think it's that it's not a requirement for the breweries to include nutritional information, not that it's not allowed. In fact, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the big breweries lobby to keep it that way - they don't want people to know what's in their beers.

Other than that, I agree with what you said. People drink those beers because they are cheap, and because they don't know any better.

In 1876 when Bud first came out it was $17 a beer, inflated. Thats hardly cheap. Corn and rice were in high demand so a light beer was actually more expensive to make. And I think the concept of beer as a means to get drunk is a more recent phenomenon than the origins of the american lager.

Part two of this interview is in today's Basic Brewing podcast. I highly recommend it, lots of interesting info that I never knew about before (and I thought I knew it all )

Phan71 said:

I think it's that it's not a requirement for the breweries to include nutritional information, not that it's not allowed. In fact, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the big breweries lobby to keep it that way - they don't want people to know what's in their beers.

Other than that, I agree with what you said. People drink those beers because they are cheap, and because they don't know any better.

Click to expand...

Nope, it is not allowed. Guinness was trying to put their ingredients on their stuff but is not allowed.

During WWII barley was being rationed and the big breweries had to to use adjuncts to continue production. During that time there was a shift in the American palette to the lighter more "easy drinking" lagers and the horse piss as we know it today was born.

John

Has anyone even listened to the show?

I listened to the first part of the first half, I'll download the lastest podcast and finish them on the dogwalk in the morn.

It's interesting, it appears that she's really done a lot of research.

Okay . . . I've said it before with kinder words, but this time I may pi$$ some folks off. I think that homebrewers are hypocrites for bashing BMC. Let me qualify that statement. I am more than happy to bash the companies that make BMC because of unfair business practices or misogyny in advertisement or something. But we need to face the fact that American Light Lager is a legitimate and highly respected beer style.

For whatever reason it was developed, there were socio-economic factors that influenced the product brewers made and the products that consumers bought. These socio-economic factors resulted in the best selling style of beer in human history.

We, as homebrewers, tend to enjoy big malty, hoppy beers, but this doesn't mean that those styles we tend not to prefer are less "worthy" of our recognition and attention. So what if American Light Lager was a result of "cheapness"? After all, I think that the Porter style may be similar in this regard in terms of its history.

To sum it up - I don't see why being a homebrewer precludes the idea of enjoying American Light Lagers.

Okay . . . flame away!!!

sonvolt said:

Okay . . . I've said it before with kinder words, but this time I may pi$$ some folks off. I think that homebrewers are hypocrites for bashing BMC. Let me qualify that statement. I am more than happy to bash the companies that make BMC because of unfair business practices or misogyny in advertisement or something. But we need to face the fact that American Light Lager is a legitimate and highly respected beer style.

For whatever reason it was developed, there were socio-economic factors that influenced the product brewers made and the products that consumers bought. These socio-economic factors resulted in the best selling style of beer in human history.

We, as homebrewers, tend to enjoy big malty, hoppy beers, but this doesn't mean that those styles we tend not to prefer are less "worthy" of our recognition and attention. So what if American Light Lager was a result of "cheapness"? After all, I think that the Porter style may be similar in this regard in terms of its history.

To sum it up - I don't see why being a homebrewer precludes the idea of enjoying American Light Lagers.

Okay . . . flame away!!!

Click to expand...

Drink what you like, brew what you like, and leave the crap beer to the others.
If it happens that you like crap beer then good for you.

i gots the book, and posted it in the book review.

anyhoo, beer was considered a food, and thus got by many regulations back in the day. and the old style lagers of the german immigrants, according to maureen, where very much in keeping with the old styles of europe. she goes on about beer gardens and other pleasant stuff. beer garden is what i'd like to sink my future into.

anyhoo, she ties the success of the big three macro swill to successfull marketing campaigns, and good old fashion work ethic. the early brewers busted their hump every day of their lives carving out their success.

edit:

i like the macro swill as well, and would not pass up a bit of good fellowship with the pleebs just cause they like miller or bud....

I won't flame you. You are correct. They wouldn't make it if people didn't like it and buy it. I find it admirable for example that Bud produces more than 5 billion bottles of beer every year and everyone of them tastes the same, for what it's worth. I just personally don't like the style.

I think that any homebrewer should find that level of repeatability remarkable considering that some of use have difficulty reproducing good results from one 5 gallon batch to the next.

orfy said:

Drink what you like, brew what you like, and leave the crap beer to the others.
If it happens that you like crap beer then good for you.

Click to expand...

Yeah . . .I wouldn't say that I like crap beer. I would say that I enjoy the right beer for the right occasion. Playing cards with buddies - stouts, porters, IPAs. Sitting by the fire on a cold winter evening - Barleywines, chocolate stouts, etc.

Sitting in the bleachers at Wrigley Field - Old Style.

Throwing down some Rocky Mountain Oyster's with a bunch of other rednecks at my old man's cabin - High Life.

Get the point . . . .American Light Lager has its place and time when it hits just the right spot. . . . much like the other styles we/I drink.

sonvolt said:

To sum it up - I don't see why being a homebrewer precludes the idea of enjoying American Light Lagers.

Click to expand...

I'm fully with you. When I started homebrewing, and even before that, I used to bash BMC quite a bit, but it took the knowledge of brewing and beers to actually respect these beers and their brewing process. Sure they are cheaply made (I feel that makinging a lager in 30 days is not enough and that one can taste that) and I don't fully agree with their recipes either. But certainly better than some bad micro brew that I had in the past.

I also listened to the podcast and found it very interesting. Even more intesting is, that the supposedly false story was also told by the Modern Marvels Brewing episode. But I have no problem with believing her. It does sound plausible to be especially the fact that you need to dillute 6 row with rice or corn. I also put the book on my wish list for christmas.

Kai

My problem with BMC is that it's not beer. Go ahead. Look at the labels.

SHOW ME ON THE BOTTLE WHERE THEY CLAIM THEIR PRODUCT IS ACTUALLY BEER!!!!

Don't point me to the script that says, "King of Beers". I don't have to be a fairy to be the Fairy King. Similarly, you wouldn't have to be Beer in order to be the King of Beers (at least in theory). So go ahead. Check out the labels. Show me where any of those products claim to be beer. Sure, the Busch logo says "Busch Beer", but that's not a claim to be beer either, it's the name of the company that makes the stuff.

That is my real objection to BMC. Everybody has it in their mind that when they are drinking a BMC, they are having a Beer, but it's really just a malt liquor. And a low-alcohol, light, malt liquor at that. If you're gonna drink Malt Liquor, you might as well just buck up and get a 40 of the Colt 45. I mean, honestly...

And then again how many people label their brew as BEER. We know it is but if it isn't labeled..............

sonvolt said:

Okay . . . I've said it before with kinder words, but this time I may pi$$ some folks off. I think that homebrewers are hypocrites for bashing BMC. Let me qualify that statement. I am more than happy to bash the companies that make BMC because of unfair business practices or misogyny in advertisement or something. But we need to face the fact that American Light Lager is a legitimate and highly respected beer style.

For whatever reason it was developed, there were socio-economic factors that influenced the product brewers made and the products that consumers bought. These socio-economic factors resulted in the best selling style of beer in human history.

We, as homebrewers, tend to enjoy big malty, hoppy beers, but this doesn't mean that those styles we tend not to prefer are less "worthy" of our recognition and attention. So what if American Light Lager was a result of "cheapness"? After all, I think that the Porter style may be similar in this regard in terms of its history.

To sum it up - I don't see why being a homebrewer precludes the idea of enjoying American Light Lagers.

Okay . . . flame away!!!

Click to expand...

I can agree with that. I have no problem with the American light lager as a style. I personally don't think BMC does a good job with the style. I've had craft and homebrewed light American lagers that put any product BMC puts out to shame.

johnsma22 said:

During WWII barley was being rationed and the big breweries had to to use adjuncts to continue production. During that time there was a shift in the American palette to the lighter more "easy drinking" lagers and the horse piss as we know it today was born.

Click to expand...

Maureen's research directly refutes this myth. She gave a pretty interesting interview. I've also swapped email with her a couple times since the interview. I look forward to listening to the second half of the interview.

FWIW I almost never drink BMC, I'll drink Diet Coke first. However; I'll never look down my nose at it either. Drink what you like, Brew what you drink. (I do, as mentioned before, have issues with their business practices)

sonvolt said:

Okay . . . flame away!!!

Click to expand...

Well if no one else is I guess I will. Bud and Miller are not good beers. I don't care if you appreciate the opinion of millions of americans. They're wrong. I have Bud Light in my fridge, next to homebrew and microbrew, because my wife drinks it. She likes the bland taste and lack of complexity. But she is wrong too, its not good beer. Sure it has its place at the ball park, after mowing the lawn, on the river, but its not good beer. Saying that those beers are good would be like saying that Oscar Meyer Weeners are a good sausage or that Velveeta is a good cheese. Its simply not the case.

jcarson83 said:

Well if no one else is I guess I will. Bud and Miller are not good beers. I don't care if you appreciate the opinion of millions of americans. They're wrong. I have Bud Light in my fridge, next to homebrew and microbrew, because my wife drinks it. She likes the bland taste and lack of complexity. But she is wrong too, its not good beer. Sure it has its place at the ball park, after mowing the lawn, on the river, but its not good beer. Saying that those beers are good would be like saying that Oscar Meyer Weeners are a good sausage or that Velveeta is a good cheese. Its simply not the case.

Click to expand...

Let me point out two errors that you make in this post. First, your post argues against someone who makes a claim that Bud and Miller are "good beers." This is an example of the straw man fallacy. Reread my post and you will notice that I never wrote this. What I did write is that hombrewers tend to criticize the style known as American Light Lager, which Bud and Miller happen to brew a lot of. The point of my argument was to remind us that American Light Lager is a legitimate and popular beer style and that we (homebrewers) may do ourselves a favor by ceasing to bash it and recognize its place in the art of brewing for which we have so much respect.

Your second error is an even more complex (and I think a snobbish/bigoted one). You seem to be very adamant in determining what is wrong for others. Of course, your only reference point is your own aesthetic judgment and taste. In your post above, you use only your own sense of "taste" to pass judgments onto others in a staunchly rude manner. It is not too far of a stretch to claim that bigots do the same thing.

It might be the same as me saying, "I don't like the taste of hefe-weizens. They are bland and less complex than my roasty Irish red ale. So, anyone who likes hefe-weizens is just wrong - wrong."

jcarson83 said:

Well if no one else is I guess I will. Bud and Miller are not good beers. I don't care if you appreciate the opinion of millions of americans. They're wrong. I have Bud Light in my fridge, next to homebrew and microbrew, because my wife drinks it. She likes the bland taste and lack of complexity. But she is wrong too, its not good beer. Sure it has its place at the ball park, after mowing the lawn, on the river, but its not good beer. Saying that those beers are good would be like saying that Oscar Meyer Weeners are a good sausage or that Velveeta is a good cheese. Its simply not the case.

Click to expand...

Let me point out a third error that you made. You called BMC "Beer" when, clearly, we know that it is malt liquor, not "Beer".

I'm sorry sonvolt, but BMC is good, cheap, easy drinking, low-alcohol malt liquor. It is NOT, however, good beer.


Here's the thing I've noticed about tastes and tasting: Some people have, what I call, "dead tastebuds". These are people who like what they like and won't like something new, no matter how delicious, because it doesn't taste familiar. Of course, everyone is like that... to a degree, but some are far more so than others.

Personally, I am very experimental with flavors, I try a lot of new foods and new spices. Some of my recipes are hits, and some are misses and I usually know what people will think of my food or beverages before I serve it because I have a palate that allows me to make that assessment. I also know certain people will not like my food or beverages because, the first sip they take, will be with a thought in their mind that says, "I'm not going to like this... I'm not going to like this..." and then they take a drink, and without even swirling it around or breathing the aroma, they make a contorted face and say, "Blech!!!"

I submit to you the following hypothesis: Anyone who thinks BMC tastes good has no significantly living taste buds. Sure, people like it, but invariably, you will find that people who do drink it exclusively will NOT like other styles of beer- they will not like porters or stouts or IPA's or whatever. In other words, they do not like beer, they only like BMC and that is something different- low alcohol malt liquor.


So I'm afraid I have to agree with jcarson. BMC is the Velveeta of beer. You can like it if you wish, you can smear it over french fries and lick your fingers clean. You can enjoy the taste. You can be a fan of velveeta, you can think it's a delicious taste!You can even call me a "cheese snob" for saying that Velveeta is not cheese and that I would never allow it into my home as it is a crappy, inferior product. However, liking velveeta is not the same thing as liking cheese.

Liking BMC is not the same thing as liking beer.

Ooops! Looks like I logged inot the CAMRA site by accident.

Imagine if the best selling BMC products tasted as good as a top-rated micro.
I think that we'd all be snobbish about that too and we'd be creating the most outrageous ales imaginable or a lighter lager "alternative".

sonvolt said:

Let me point out two errors that you make in this post. First, your post argues against someone who makes a claim that Bud and Miller are "good beers." This is an example of the straw man fallacy. Reread my post and you will notice that I never wrote this. What I did write is that hombrewers tend to criticize the style known as American Light Lager, which Bud and Miller happen to brew a lot of. The point of my argument was to remind us that American Light Lager is a legitimate and popular beer style and that we (homebrewers) may do ourselves a favor by ceasing to bash it and recognize its place in the art of brewing for which we have so much respect.

Your second error is an even more complex (and I think a snobbish/bigoted one). You seem to be very adamant in determining what is wrong for others. Of course, your only reference point is your own aesthetic judgment and taste. In your post above, you use only your own sense of "taste" to pass judgments onto others in a staunchly rude manner. It is not too far of a stretch to claim that bigots do the same thing.

It might be the same as me saying, "I don't like the taste of hefe-weizens. They are bland and less complex than my roasty Irish red ale. So, anyone who likes hefe-weizens is just wrong - wrong."

Click to expand...

I don't know why you have to ruin a perfectly good discussion with petty name calling. Being a bigot would require intolerence. Intolerence would require that I be inflamatory or inciteful. This was not my intent. I was simply intending to say that people who claim that that is good beer are simply wrong or mistaken. If you claim that everyone who disagrees with anyone, and voices that opinion, is a bigot then the word loses its significance.

For your first point, I would not have a problem if you had not used the word art and instead subsituted skill. Art implies the expression of what we percieve as beauty.

Toot said:

Here's the thing I've noticed about tastes and tasting: Some people have, what I call, "dead tastebuds". These are people who like what they like and won't like something new, no matter how delicious, because it doesn't taste familiar. Of course, everyone is like that... to a degree, but some are far more so than others.

Personally, I am very experimental with flavors, I try a lot of new foods and new spices. Some of my recipes are hits, and some are misses and I usually know what people will think of my food or beverages before I serve it because I have a palate that allows me to make that assessment. I also know certain people will not like my food or beverages because, the first sip they take, will be with a thought in their mind that says, "I'm not going to like this... I'm not going to like this..." and then they take a drink, and without even swirling it around or breathing the aroma, they make a contorted face and say, "Blech!!!"

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. My fiancé drinks Bud Light only, and doesn't like any other beers. Everytime I try to get her to taste something, she has exactly the reaction you described, namely, making a face and saying "blech!" She's also pretty picky and set in her ways with food. I'm trying to slowly, oh so slowly, get her to broaden her horizons, with both food and beer. It's a challenger, for sure. I think I'm going to make a really light ale as a gateway brew.

david_42 said:

Nutritional information that is required on food, is not allowed to be printed on beer containers.

Click to expand...

Not to disagree because this involves a different product and a diffferent era.

I clearly remember reading the label of a Steidel's Wine Cooler in the 80's.
Though it may not have said "Ingredients" (It might have said. "Contains") I distinctly remember seeing a list if ingredients. The ingredient that stood out was Wine™. They trademaked wine, because it was probably not wine as you and I know it, but winefood or wineproduct or some other laboratory creature.

Just to throw in some more kindling here:

There is a correlation between losing one's sense of taste (taste buds) with smoking.
In my observation, many BMC drinkers (especially lite beer) smoke.

olllllo said:

Ooops! Looks like I logged inot the CAMRA site by accident.

Imagine if the best selling BMC products tasted as good as a top-rated micro.


I think that we'd all be snobbish about that too and we'd be creating the most outrageous ales imaginable or a lighter lager "alternative".

Click to expand...

I live in Chicago and all but the largest national grocery stores carry locally-made sausages. The sausage I can get in a local store is truly of phenomenal quality. And the sausage I get at a butcher's shop is even better and more flavorful. Then, there's this little restaurant I go to where they make their own sausage, and that's the best sausage you may ever taste in your life.

A big city, lots of ethnic diversity, the "hog-butcher to the world" and whatnot. All that adds up to delicious pre-processed meat-in-a-tube products. Nevertheless, some people that I know still make their own sausage. Maybe they use lots of chive and onion. Maybe they make a garlic sausage that will bring tears to your eyes. Maybe a german guy married a girl from southern mexico and now they make sweet sausage with dates and raisins. Whatever. But I'll tell you: I have never heard of anyone going through the trouble to make their own sausage trying to replicate Oscar Meyer Weiners (OMW) as an "alternative" to good sausage.


I am sure that, in some areas of the country, OMW is the standard sausage that everyone knows and loves. I'm sure plenty of those people would be thoroughly grossed out at the thought of Chicago sausage which contains actual small chunks of meat, rather than a uniformly-consistent paste. But we're really talking about two different things and I'm not even sure it's fair to compare them...

One is a preprocessed food item, designed to maximize certain criteria for the lowest possible price. The other is a food/drink made the way that the particular food/drink has been made for thousands of years.


Is it really fair to even put BMC in the same league as beers that are made using old-fashioned methods? Is it fair to compare a baker's loaf to wonderbread? One is made using time-tested traditions and ingredients that are as old as man himself. The other is made for the lowest possible price.

olllllo said:

I clearly remember reading the label of a Steidel's Wine Cooler in the 80's.
Though it may not have said "Ingredients" (It might have said. "Contains") I distinctly remember seeing a list if ingredients. The ingredient that stood out was Wine™. They trademaked wine, because it was probably not wine as you and I know it, but winefood or wineproduct or some other laboratory creature.

Click to expand...

Well, a lot of micros list their ingredients, down to the types of malt and hops that are used, but there's no nutritional information given. No calories, or carbohydrates, or anything like that. I don't think there's even any assurance that the list provided is 100% inclusive, although I would imagine that it is. Being allowed to list ingredients is different than being allowed to show the "nutritional facts" box, which implies that beer is food (and which I'm sure the FDA does not want, even if historically beer *was* "liquid bread").

the_bird said:

Well, a lot of micros list their ingredients, down to the types of malt and hops that are used, but there's no nutritional information given. No calories, or carbohydrates, or anything like that. I don't think there's even any assurance that the list provided is 100% inclusive, although I would imagine that it is. Being allowed to list ingredients is different than being allowed to show the "nutritional facts" box, which implies that beer is food (and which I'm sure the FDA does not want, even if historically beer *was* "liquid bread").

Click to expand...

Exactly. But the micos list then as a marketing tool, to distinguigh thier product, because they want to.

Not sure what Stiedels was going for. There was nothing wholesome about it. It was like they were forced. Again different time, different product.

Wonder what the alca-pops list? Aren't they forced to label as Malt Beverage?

Toot said:

I live in Chicago and all but the largest national grocery stores carry locally-made sausages. The sausage I can get in a local store is truly of phenomenal quality. And the sausage I get at a butcher's shop is even better and more flavorful. Then, there's this little restaurant I go to where they make their own sausage, and that's the best sausage you may ever taste in your life.

A big city, lots of ethnic diversity, the "hog-butcher to the world" and whatnot. All that adds up to delicious pre-processed meat-in-a-tube products. Nevertheless, some people that I know still make their own sausage. Maybe they use lots of chive and onion. Maybe they make a garlic sausage that will bring tears to your eyes. Maybe a german guy married a girl from southern mexico and now they make sweet sausage with dates and raisins. Whatever. But I'll tell you: I have never heard of anyone going through the trouble to make their own sausage trying to replicate Oscar Meyer Weiners (OMW) as an "alternative" to good sausage.


I am sure that, in some areas of the country, OMW is the standard sausage that everyone knows and loves. I'm sure plenty of those people would be thoroughly grossed out at the thought of Chicago sausage which contains actual small chunks of meat, rather than a uniformly-consistent paste. But we're really talking about two different things and I'm not even sure it's fair to compare them...

One is a preprocessed food item, designed to maximize certain criteria for the lowest possible price. The other is a food/drink made the way that the particular food/drink has been made for thousands of years.


Is it really fair to even put BMC in the same league as beers that are made using old-fashioned methods? Is it fair to compare a baker's loaf to wonderbread? One is made using time-tested traditions and ingredients that are as old as man himself. The other is made for the lowest possible price.

Click to expand...

Just had a Stanley's Polish Sausage yesterday, here in PHX. Made on the premises. Not too many of those ethnic type places here so we learn to appreciate them. I get you point. My point is that this hobby exists and thrives to do the contrarian thing alot of the time. I mean is anyone really drooling for a Papazian Chicken beer?

Beer, like other things has moments where the low brow becomes the high brow (or brau, if you will). Anyone remember a restaurant (or bistro) in NYC that was selling Swanson's frozen dinners at an extreme markup? There's a PBJ restaurant in Scottsdale and a Breakfast Cereal Restaurant in Tempe.

Sorry jakkin this thread.

I appreciate the history of some of the big breweries. Back in the day they created breweries that were palaces and were tightly woven into everyday life, the economy, trades, society. You can appreciate at least that much.

Toot said:

I'm sorry sonvolt, but BMC is good, cheap, easy drinking, low-alcohol malt liquor. It is NOT, however, good beer.

Click to expand...

Do you people not read the threads that are posted. I never wrote that BMC is good beer. I did write that we need to respect the style that is American Light Lager and use it in our discourse in a way that is representative of its place in America's brewing tradition.

Toot said:

I submit to you the following hypothesis: Anyone who thinks BMC tastes good has no significantly living taste buds. Sure, people like it, but invariably, you will find that people who do drink it exclusively will NOT like other styles of beer- they will not like porters or stouts or IPA's or whatever. In other words, they do not like beer, they only like BMC and that is something different- low alcohol malt liquor.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess that I will blow your hypothesis right out of the water, then. I think that High Life tasted good. I also think that my I2PA is good. I also like porters and stouts.

BTW, I know a lot of people whose tasted are similar to mine in this regard.

olllllo said:

Just had a Stanley's Polish Sausage yesterday, here in PHX. Made on the premises. Not too many of those ethnic type places here so we learn to appreciate them. I get you point. My point is that this hobby exists and thrives to do the contrarian thing alot of the time. I mean is anyone really drooling for a Papazian Chicken beer?

Click to expand...

True. I'm very much a contrarian and it seems like every other homebrewer I meet at least has some Libertarian leanings- not that those two things always go hand-in-hand, but often they do.

Beer, like other things has moments where the low brow becomes the high brow (or brau, if you will). Anyone remember a restaurant (or bistro) in NYC that was selling Swanson's frozen dinners at an extreme markup? There's a PBJ restaurant in Scottsdale and a Breakfast Cereal Restaurant in Tempe.

Sorry jakkin this thread.

Click to expand...

LOL. Hell, there are times when it's fun to just sit out on your front porch with a 40 of Colt 45. And what would bowling be without a PBR?

I appreciate the history of some of the big breweries. Back in the day they created breweries that were palaces and were tightly woven into everyday life, the economy, trades, society. You can appreciate at least that much.

Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY AGREED!!! It is a fascinating story. My mother has about 3 drinks a year, my father has 1 or 2 every night. But mom remembers back when her grandparents owned a shop and down the block was a tavern where they would sell children a bucket of beer to take home to their parents and nobody thought much about it.

Last year, 10 years out of high school, a friend and I invited our old high school english teacher out to dinner at a local beerpub. He was facing the bar and, at one point, he got a huge smile on his face and we turned to see what he was looking at. When we turned back around, he said, "That's how you can tell when you're in a nice friendly place... there's a kid up there at the bar."

That's not the kind of stuff you see anymore. Alcohol has become such a "naughty" thing that children are typically kept at a very large distance. But some of my fondest memories growing up occured after dad had a beer or two. He didn't get tipsy or anything, but he was a little more relaxed and always seemed more approachable at those times. Alcohol has admirably served many varied functions in societies for thousands of years and it is a shame that we as a society are now trying to pigeon-hole the activity into a secret, strictly controlled, behind closed doors activity. Just another form of repression in America, IMNSHO.

jcarson83 said:

I don't know why you have to ruin a perfectly good discussion with petty name calling. Being a bigot would require intolerence. Intolerence would require that I be inflamatory or inciteful.

Click to expand...

Bigot \Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once
given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly
akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of
spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall.
Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same
source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Click to expand...

Click Here for Source























If this seems too mean . . .

I think a key observation is the fact that much of America (sadly) is dictated via. media and mass marketing, and to a degree tradition. My dad drank bud, uncle billy drinks bud, grandpa drinks bud, we at nascar drink bud, we at the ball game drink bud, we at the football stadium drink....y'all get my point I am sure. I have learned that developing a palate is not something everyone is concerned about. Beer is to get you drunk and food is to make you full. As long as it passes on the common palate as 'unoffensive' it is acceptable. These are stong traditions which are not so easily broken, and most likely we who love great beer will be a minority in this nation. Many people are afraid of 'different' foods and drinks. They want something safe, something familiar. I always love the looks I get at the grocery store. hehe.

The podcast was interesting, I listened to it when it first came out and have yet to complete the second half. I did know about the cider traditions, in fact most of the apple trees grown after the colonists set their roots down were cider apples. Many varieties have been lost because of the rise in popularity of cheap beer, so I have read.

For the masses, they can continue gnawing on tasteless food and cheap beverage. But for me, I choose a different route. Pass me another Oatmeal Stout will ya!

Torchiest said:

I couldn't agree with you more. My fiancé drinks Bud Light only, and doesn't like any other beers. Everytime I try to get her to taste something, she has exactly the reaction you described, namely, making a face and saying "blech!" She's also pretty picky and set in her ways with food. I'm trying to slowly, oh so slowly, get her to broaden her horizons, with both food and beer. It's a challenger, for sure. I think I'm going to make a really light ale as a gateway brew.

Click to expand...

A better approach might be to let her design a beer. Sure, she doesn't know much about it right now, but you can teach her. I would start by making some hops teas with different varieties and let her sample those. And steep some malts. Let her come to recognize the different flavors that make up a beer and then select the features that she likes, then combine them into a cohesive recipe. Call it "my girlfriend's first" or somesuch and then brew it up yourself.

It's a lot more difficult to not like something when you've had a hand in creating it- at least it forces you to keep an open mind when sampling it.

Another fun thing I've done with BMC folks (and personally, though I try not to laugh, deep down I find this to be hilarious) is to pour them a sample of BMC alongside a sample of high quality sake. Usually, when they compare them side to side, if they have any taste buds at all, they will immediately recognize the ricey-ness in BMC.

Because sake is rarely appreciated by beer-swilling Americans, once they realize that their beer tastes more like sake than beer, a little lightbulb goes off in their head and they think to themselves, "Well, I guess BMC isn't really all that much like beer afterall..."

Before this gets locked, why is bmc not beer? it has malt, hops and yeast right? I must have missed something.

Todd said:

Before this gets locked, why is bmc not beer? it has malt, hops and yeast right? I must have missed something.

Click to expand...

But if I took 4 ounces of malt, 2 pellets of hops, and three spores of yeast and combined it with 30 pounds of cotton candy and a full side of beef, and roasted it in the oven at 350 degrees for 3 hours, the result would not be beer. Beer is defined, not just by what is in it, but also by what is NOT in it. To whit: Rice extract, and god-knows-what-else because BMC is not required to list their ingredients. Of course, you could argue that if it's liquid that has alcohol, tastes like beer, and looks like beer, then it IS beer, however there is such a genre of drinks called "malt liquor" and that distinction is there for a reason. Although it has a bad reputation here in the United States (since it's equated with Olde English and Colt 45), it is nevertheless a very broad category which encompasses any number of brewed alcoholic beverages including Colt 45, Zima, and those Smirnoff Ice things. I submit to you, that absent any knowledge of the ingredients, BMC is closer to Colt 45 (which as far as I know is only considered a malt beverage due to its alcohol content) than to traditionally-brewed beers.

An interesting article I read sometime ago said that some beers use artificial chemicals to improve, among other things, head retention. The way to test for this is to add a single drop of milk to the bottom of the glass before pouring a "beer". Apparently, this will absolutely kill the foam if non-natural chemical additions were added for head retention. I can't recall which one it is, but based on this test, one of the big three do not use this addition, while the other two clearly do.

I've not tested this, however so it's still heresay. I'm just repeating what I read. Nevertheless, knowing that rice is used and knowing that other things are used which are apparently sufficiently distasteful to cause large breweries to fight against listing their ingredients is proof enough for me that they use some things which you would prefer not to drink if you knew it was in there...

So what percentage are you looking to have to make it beer? It seems a lot of this is just ranting. I don't understand how anyone likes the stuff, but people clearly do. It is beer, is a porter or stout with several pounds of honey no longer beer?

Toot said:

But if I took 4 ounces of malt, 2 pellets of hops, and three spores of yeast and combined it with 30 pounds of cotton candy and a full side of beef, and roasted it in the oven at 350 degrees for 3 hours, the result would not be beer. Beer is defined, not just by what is in it, but also by what is NOT in it. To whit: Rice extract, and god-knows-what-else because BMC is not required to list their ingredients.

An interesting article I read sometime ago said that some beers use artificial chemicals to improve, among other things, head retention. The way to test for this is to add a single drop of milk to the bottom of the glass before pouring a "beer". Apparently, this will absolutely kill the foam if non-natural chemical additions were added for head retention. I can't recall which one it is, but based on this test, one of the big three do not use this addition, while the other two clearly do.

I've not tested this, however so it's still heresay. I'm just repeating what I read. Nevertheless, knowing that rice is used and knowing that other things are used which are apparently sufficiently distasteful to cause large breweries to fight against listing their ingredients is proof enough for me that they use some things which you would prefer not to drink if you knew it was in there...

Click to expand...