What does "good beer" mean?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Cape Brewing

DOH!!! Stupid brewing...
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
15,522
Reaction score
1,192
Location
Norton, MA
As the craft beer industry continues to grow at a pretty amazing pace, it seems like there is an ever-increasing need (for some reason I don't understand) to quantify beer on "best of" lists and a growing list of rating apps and websites. We're obsessed with "this beer is better than that beer" or "that beer is the BEST" and "that beer SUCKED"... the problem is, I don't think anyone understands what any of those statements actually mean.

The whole concept of what a "good beer" is a topic that I've been really fascinated by (again... for some reason I don't understand) and I think it's a much more complex question than a huge percent of the beer-drinking population appreciates. I think it is delusional to think the problem can ultimately be "solved" but I also think it's a really interesting topic and one that has the potential of increasing everyone's enjoyment of the new environment the craft beer explosion is creating.

Let me try to give some examples of what I'm talking about to try to illustrate the issue.

Again... what does "good beer" mean?

Answer 1: "A good beer is a beer a lot of people like. If a lot of people really like it, then obviously it's a great beer."

Okay. Intuitively that makes a lot of sense. I may be wrong but I believe Bud Light is still the number one selling beer in the United States. I don't think it's a leap of logic to assume that people are buying it because they like it. I understand marketing, price points, etc. but at the end of the day, I think it's safe to assume that people are largely buying it, and continue to buy it, because they like it. Okay, well... if more people like Bud Light than any other beer in the United States, then why is it a "48", or "awful" on Beer Advocate? Heineken sells more beer than a huge chunk of craft beer producers and anyone who's ever had a Heineken can attest to it's signature "light struck" off flavor. It's a beer that, by "brewing rules", has a material off-flavor... yet they sell an awful lot of it. So... does that make it "good" or "bad"?? Popularity is really problematic when trying to "rate" a beer.

Answer 2: "The best beers are the ones rate highest on the ratings sites"

This makes a lot of sense but it is still really problematic. The reason I say that is you have to think about what the rating sites truly represent. They are depositories for ratings by a very small portion of the market. They are ratings by, largely, "beer nerds" who not only are "beer nerds" but they are also the subset that are willing to set up an account, log in, and post a review of a given beer. So... you're talking about a very tiny number of people who are now defining what is "good" vs "bad" for the rest of the market. It's a very small subset that, given my Bud Light example above, appears to see things in the exact opposite of the larger market. In addition, if you look at the list of "top... pick a number" beers, the lists have been dominated in recent years by IPAs, Big IPAs, Bigger IPAs, and big stouts. So does that mean no one is making an awesome Hefe?? That doesn't make sense. This very small group of people who rate beers are subject to a huge amount of style preference and hype.. and that is reflected time and time again in ratings. As an experiment (and I've seen this done)... take a line up of "whale" IPAs... and add in a few solid IPAs from... wherever... and then do a blind taste test with 7-8 of them. The number of people who can actually pick out which is which out of the line up is near 0. Additionally, if you asked the taste-testers to rank their favorites... the chances that they would come out according to their online rankings... is also 0%. If that is the case, then how much can we really read into "rankings"?

Lastly... on "rankings"... the biggest problem is this: it's a ranking based on... what?? I believe a huge percentage of the time, it is a ranking simply based on personal preference. One taste tester might really love Cascade hops while another hates Cascade hops. Does that make an IPA made predominantly with Cascade "good" or "bad"? I have no idea because I have no idea what the criteria is that someone judged it by. And again.. as with the Bud Light topic above, preference is a really tough determinant for "good" or "bad".

Answer 3: "The brewer accomplished exactly what was intended"

This is the one that I personally believe should be the only determinant on whether a beer os "good" or "bad" but I also admit it would be next to impossible to accomplish. Beer drinkers just don't want to waste time trying to get into the head of the brewer. They just want to put it in their face if they think it tastes good (hey... I do the same thing so don't think I'm knocking anyone).

I do feel, though, that this is the only way to determine if a beer is "good" or "bad". If a brewer wanted to make a "Roasted Summer Squash Irish Red", most people would cringe, think, "that's disgusting" and crush the beer ratings -wise. But hold on... #1, is there anything TECHNICALLY wrong with the beer? Are there off-flavors present from bad technique, sanitation, etc? Can you, as the drinker, understand what the brewer was trying to do by tasting the beer and are the various flavors balanced in an appropriate way?? I guess I would argue that, just because you don't happen to care for the flavors, that doesn't make the beer any "worse" than your favorite beer.

I think craft beer is even more art than science and art is a good way to think about it. Pablo Picasso's painting style was Cubism while Norman Rockwell was, probably the most respected illustrator in US art history. Which was a better artist? Well, if you look at Picasso's work and think "I don't get that at ALL"... does that mean Picasso is a "bad artist"?? If you are a huge fan of Cubism or Expressionism, does that mean you Normal Rockwell (about as far from Expressionism as you can get) is a "bad artist"?

But... with both artists... if you took a step back and asked what the artist was trying to accomplish... I think BOTH would be recognized as the masters they were and I think this sort of approach would go a long long way to improving craft beer overall. It would open a lot of people's minds up to different styles. Breweries would be much more apt to push boundaries in beers other than IPAs and the huge explosion we've seen would only grow even more, producing even more amazing beers.

Sorry for the very long post but I would be really interested to see what people think.
 
A good beer is one that is in my mouth and im not just painfully waiting till its gone

online ratings only give one facet of what a beer has to offer. Same thing with hype from word of mouth

I know you have your own brewery. Id say a good beer is one that creates genuine loyal customers
 
Good beer for me changes with weather, what I'm eating, how thirsty I am, etc. I've had beers that struck me as heaven sent on some occasions and just okay on others. These being commercial beers that don't vary wildly in character. I don't care much about popularity or ratings. I do read descriptions. Maybe I DO want a hefe that someone said was to much banana for their taste.
 
Objectively, a "good beer" is one that closely adheres to the style guidelines of the corresponding style. You may not care for the particular style, but if it is an exemplary execution of the style, it is objectively "good."

Subjectively, a "good beer" is one that features the flavours I enjoy, while minimizing the flavours I don't.
 
A good beer is one that I enjoy drinking. A high-selling beer is a beer that sells a lot. A highly-rated beer is a beer that has high ratings on your popular beer rating sites.
 
I know you have your own brewery.

... and just for honest and full disclosure... this topic has nothing to do with the brewery I'm a part owner in and this is by no means some sour grapes issue of "Ewwww someone doesn't like our beer so they're stupid!". Our ratings, luckily, are very strong but like I was getting at above... I don't know what those ratings really mean.

I would MUCH rather have good ones I guess but it's such a gray area that I don't fully understand.

One little note on that... there is a popular beer blogger in Mass that really spurred this issue for me a few months ago. He was "rating" a beer (not one of ours) and the beer was a "Double Hopped Octoberfest". In his review, he said, "way too hoppy for the style" and than gave it some ridiculous made up "score" based on... who knows what.

I was actually pissed about how many things were wrong with that review. The brewer SAID it was a very hoppy beer and, in commercial brewing, no one is trying to win a homebrew contest so style guidelines don't mean anything other than to help describe a beer for the drinker. So... I just thought the entire review was such a steaming heap of crap.

Is one review that big of a deal? No... of course not and I should get over it... but I think it's a great illustration of a much larger "issue" with craft beer in general.
 
None of the above!

But Seriously:
1. Far to much of the population drinks in order to "get buzzed", not for flavor, so popularity cannot be the determining factor.
2. You nailed the explanation as to why ratings don't work, unless you find a rater with whom your tastes closely coincide.
3. You nailed it again...even if a beer is the greatest expression possible of what the brewer intended to create, it doesn't matter if it doesn't coincide with my taste and, additionally, what I want at the time that I want it. An RIS while sitting on the beach in the height of summer may not go down as well as intended.
 
I can't stand online ratings. People are idiots but try way too hard to sound sophisticated.


This post stinks of horse leather, rancid jabuticaba, and 13-year-old oak-aged gouda mixed in a blender, made into ice cream, melted, evaporated into a powder, sprinkled as a dry rub on pork tenderloin, and overcooked.
 
You are hitting on an issue that is bigger than beer. I am a lecturer of philosophy, and I dont mean to give a lecture here, but you are discussing what has historically been called the problem of "taste". The question comes down to whether or not taste can be an objective phenomenon or is ultimately a subjective phenomenon. One answer I like came from Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. In relation to beauty he claimed that something is beautiful when it defies conceptual categorization and initiates a free play between imagination and understanding. I think this can relate to beer. The standards are not conceptual and or rule based. A good beer arouses this phenomenon where the mind has trouble classifying why it is good but enjoys this experience anyway. Again, sorry if it sounds like a lecture, I'm just fascinated by the topic.
 
I can't stand online ratings. People are idiots but try way too hard to sound sophisticated.

I completely agree with this. I've tried joining in with rating apps and stuff but peoples reviews just make me want to punch my phone in hopes they would feel it. Breaking down a beer like you're a BJCP on an app, regurgitating what other people say.. give me a break.

The only thing these apps are good for IMO, is a quick search of a beer you haven't tried before to try and decide if it has any qualities you would enjoy.

The brewers intent is the only thing that matters, again.. in my opinion. If he succeeded in making the beer he wanted to make, it's a good beer.
 
I hate rating sites also, that goes for almost everything not just beer. I only have a few sites that "rate" that are actually spot on with what I agree. For example usually the Rotten Tomatoes ratings are pretty close to my taste and for video games IGN always seems to hit it on the head other than that...most sites that rate things are really off base (in my experience).

The only thing I do like is untapped, its an app and yes you can rate the beer but for me...and many people I think its just a tool to keep up with which beers you tried and if you would try it again based on what you rated it.

Personally, I like a lot of beer, most of beer, I mean..I really really like beer so when I see people talk BS about certain styles or brands I just look the other way b/c there is a good chance I like that beer also. This list does include BMC beers I don't mind saying it...as the OP said the price point is great and I love a clean pilsner flavor just like millions of other Americans...
 
mmm sounds like a brett saison


I had a wild ale from Peacetree recently where I knew it tasted like _something_ ...I just couldn't quite piece it together...


Then the dots connected. Tasted remarkably like Burger King plain double cheeserburgers.
 
Good beer is good... bad or mediocre beer is not good.

'Good' could be a good example of a particular style, an experiment that worked out well, or just plain good beer.

I don't think anyone cares what the brewer was going for if it sucks.

Of course, most all of this is subjective and barely worth discussing.
 
I hate rating sites also, that goes for almost everything not just beer. I only have a few sites that "rate" that are actually spot on with what I agree. For example usually the Rotten Tomatoes ratings are pretty close to my taste


God, Rotten Tomatoes is like...the worst example of a ratings site.


Make a documentary! Get a 98! Woo! Indie!
 
God, Rotten Tomatoes is like...the worst example of a ratings site.


Make a documentary! Get a 98! Woo! Indie!

No, I disagree they have two scales one for critics (which usually suck) and one for users which in my experience this has been pretty spot on. But...I don't look up indie documentaries so maybe its just your taste in movies that you are searching.
 
I don't think the intent of the brewer should be the standard. If he brews a Double IPA with cow pies and hits his mark, does that make it a good beer? I'd say no.

If the brewer has no idea what he is doing and makes a beer he is satisfied with, does that make it a good beer? It might be, it might not be.

As a BJCP judge, I've had plenty of beers that the brewer thought was good and wasn't.
 
A good beer is when you'll have a second one.

I was actually pissed about how many things were wrong with that review.

Is the concern about what he didn't understand? Or that others might believe him?

If a brewery is worried about bad reviews, it's like using ex-girlfriends as character references. You'll never get it right with that crowd.
 
As a BJCP judge, I've had plenty of beers that the brewer thought was good and wasn't.

... but that's the entire question... "wasn't" by what measure? What does "wasn't" mean?

Now obviously if there are technical issues with a beer, those deserve a ding right out of the gates... of course... but after that.

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).
 
... but that's the entire question... "wasn't" by what measure? What does "wasn't" mean?

Now obviously if there are technical issues with a beer, those deserve a ding right out of the gates... of course... but after that.


Is that true? Please comprise an exhaustive list of "technical issues" so that I may shoot them down. Hey, someone might like it if I screwed up and made metallic bandaid slop.

Cape Brewing said:
For homebrewers, there are a well-defined set of standards that the brewer is trying to adhere to (BJCP guidelines).


I don't really care about adhering to BJCP guidelines, especially as to whether or not by beers are "good".
 
And actually... I agree 1,000%... when it is presented as a matter of taste. But that's not how any of what I'm talking about works. It is, 99% of the time, presented as fact.


I think whether or not it is intended to be presented as "fact" is up to the consumer of the review, yeah?


I mean...hell, what's the golden standard in beer brewing today? GABF medals? Do you recognize those as a complete and 100% correct collection of the best beers in the world? Do you recognize any one competition, blogger, ratings panel, etc, as the end-all be-all Determiner of Good Beers?


I think it's pretty standard for a consumer of such "reviews", be they blog posts or medals given out, etc, to not be interpreted as "fact", but rather some level of opinionated information. The levels may be determined based on how credible you feel the source is, but it's still some human judging something.
 
The concern was that he was coming up with completely arbitrary views on a beer and publishing them as fact... something I think is done way, way too much.

Of course. Because there are people that wish to define and divide an industry they have no qualifications in.

I still stick with my definition: I'm looking to sell someone the second beer. That's how I know they think it's good. I've already put quality ingredients, procedures and standards in place, but if they wouldn't want it ever again, then I've failed.
 
God, Rotten Tomatoes is like...the worst example of a ratings site.


Make a documentary! Get a 98! Woo! Indie!

Only a 98??? Must be a pretty $h1tty doco then. All the rest of them are 100 even. Its cause its an aggregate rating based on %age of "favorable" reviews. Of course someone interested in marine conservation is going to give a favorable review to a doco on whaling. If they didnt have a vested interest, they wouldnt be watching it in the first place.

Same issue with top tier hyped beers. Only people that seek them out on a quest get to try them. They need to justify their effort to taste it in the first place
 
Of course. Because there are people that wish to define and divide an industry they have no qualifications in.

I still stick with my definition: I'm looking to sell someone the second beer. That's how I know they think it's good. I've already put quality ingredients, procedures and standards in place, but if they wouldn't want it ever again, then I've failed.

I had a guy in my old brew club... hated sours... we poured him a small sample of Cantillon Classic and he almost gagged and spit it out. He certainly didn't seem to want another one.

I would definitely argue that Cantillon hadn't failed (not that we're "arguing" by any stretch)
 
... but that's the entire question... "wasn't" by what measure? What does "wasn't" mean?

Now obviously if there are technical issues with a beer, those deserve a ding right out of the gates... of course... but after that.

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).

My first two points could be applied to commercial beers or homebrew.

I'd also say, if a brewer hits his marks, that could be considered a "success" while not necessarily a good beer.
 
I think your looking for something you cannot have. This entire thread is subjective, taste is subjective, "good" beer is subjective. In your example above I would argue that Cantillon had failed, they failed the guy in your brew club at the "good" beer test. Have they failed everyone, of course not.

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. In the most broad sense I would say that popularity is your best measure of a "good" beer as this encompasses the largest sample size. Not everyone will agree, but the numbers don't lie.
 
Objectively, a "good beer" is one that closely adheres to the style guidelines of the corresponding style. You may not care for the particular style, but if it is an exemplary execution of the style, it is objectively "good."

Subjectively, a "good beer" is one that features the flavours I enjoy, while minimizing the flavours I don't.

While this statement is not too complicated (give points for succinctness) is is for me right on the money.

There is one popular beer brand I just do not like, and never have, I would drink it at a gathering if it was the only thing available and to be polite. When I was younger and money was sparse. I'd buy and enjoy cheap beers. I can still enjoy a PBR and would choose it over the one I've never liked.
There are beers I have sampled and wouldn't prefer them. So good beer is mostly subjective. Popular beer is a result of economics... What people find acceptable and affordable and if they want to boast that they drink (fill in the blank) number of beers a day I imagine higher ABV brews are not their choice either.
Kwak on:rockin:
 
I think jlinz nailed the issue. A "good beer" or its opposite is a matter of taste and taste is neither objective nor inter-subjective (not really shareable any way you cut it). Which is "better"? Which is "good"? The Stones or the Beatles? The Grateful Dead or Yes? Beethoven or John Cage? The problem is that the question makes little sense so the answer makes no sense. The question in my opinion is what makes you like or dislike this or that beer, this or that band, this or that piece of art. That changes the picture- because now people with educated palates and people who know more about beer (or art or music or movies) are able to differentiate and distinguish elements and highlight and share them with others. That this or that beer is clear or hoppy or sour in this or that way does not make it good or bad or that this or that beer sells in the million barrels a year or sells only a few gallons does not make it good or bad either. The question again, is what is it about this or that beer that makes you like it or more broadly, what is it about this or that beer that is noticeable and remarkable and is - as the sociologist might say - is "accountable" - that is, demanding explanation.
 
I think whether or not it is intended to be presented as "fact" is up to the consumer of the review, yeah?


I mean...hell, what's the golden standard in beer brewing today? GABF medals? Do you recognize those as a complete and 100% correct collection of the best beers in the world? Do you recognize any one competition, blogger, ratings panel, etc, as the end-all be-all Determiner of Good Beers?


I think it's pretty standard for a consumer of such "reviews", be they blog posts or medals given out, etc, to not be interpreted as "fact", but rather some level of opinionated information. The levels may be determined based on how credible you feel the source is, but it's still some human judging something.

I don't think there's anywhere close to a perfect way to define what beers are better than others, but I will say that I personally put WAY more stock in GABF medals (or other major beer competitions) than I ever would in a ranking site where rarity, geographical bias, trend in styles, etc, all factor in greatly. At least at GABF or the like, you're getting reviews by people who, presumably, are trained and have good palates.

Like the OP, I don't know why I preoccupy myself with this topic at all, but I can't help it.
 
Anything that is based off of a personal point of view is always hard to put a label on. There's too many variables that come into play. How many "good" or "bad" beers has the person whom is judging said beer gone through to know what is good and what is bad?
Saying a lot of folks like said beer so therefore it is good is also problematic. Just because a lot of people think something is good doesn't necessarily make it so. Trends are not always good either.

I think the best way to say if something is good or bad is to get as broad of a scope as humanly possible with varying degrees of experience with said topic. For beer you could get someone who has never had a beer before all the way to a seasoned beer judge who has had thousands of beers and has been trained to criticize them. Even then you couldn't really put a stamp of "good" on a beer. You'd only know that a certain amount of people out of a sample size deem this beer as acceptable.

But is it GOOD? Do you think it's good? Yes? Ok then. It's good.

I've been let down by too many movies the masses think are good, or by restaurants people hype up to be good, only to find they aren't as good as what others have said. Something that is so personal as taste is almost impossible to label.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
 
I was at a science museum and they had a vial with some substance in it that smelled like concentrated 5 day old ducks ass. I took a drive by whiff and felt like dry heaving. My wife stood there and huffed on it it for 10 or 15 seconds and could smell anything. My kid brought home a piece of paper that to me tasted like rubber tire, but to her tasted like paper.

Objectively there is no good or bad beer. If my wife literally has different (genetically different) tastes, then no one beer can be called good for everyone. It is possible that the ducks ass chemical in extremely small amounts would be wonderful in beer. If the beer was wonderful for mostly that reason, then it would be empty and boring for my wife.

I was on a wonderful cruise after my honeymoon that had great food. I tried both escargot and frog legs for the first time while aboard. My wife and I had a beautiful gourmet lunch while the sea rolled by. The couple nearby had the hamburger which was on the menu for those folks that were turned off by chicken cordon bleu. The couple said they weren't impressed with the food on the cruise and made sure to get their cole slaw with their hamburger. In fairness, the hamburger didn't look that great.

Marketing, expectation, desire, body function, belief, community are what make beer good. All of these things are sliding scales. Belief and community however can be changed by marketing, but only to a point. I would contend that no matter how strong the bias created by marketing, community and belief you would not be able to get people to drink rat piss more that a couple of times. So the other factors must be at least acknowledged.

In the case of BMC the beer is the ultimate compromise i.e. no strong flavors not too alcoholic, no confrontational colors or aromas. The community is America and the belief is belonging and ironically independence. Throw in some Clydesdales, which I am sure everyone would agree are beautiful animals and a nod to expectation and desire (beechwood aging) and you have a winner.

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.
 
Back
Top