I feel like beer is in a weird place right now. Not just home brewing but craft beer in general. I don’t want go full old man (late 30’s) yells at cloud here so I’ll try and stay focused. I read something earlier today about Barleywine. In particular about “black Barleywine” and how it’s a new style/trend to look out for. In the intro of the article it mentioned something about Barleywine getting lost and/or forgotten lately. And it mentioned the reasons being something to the effect of the lack of innovation or lack of room for innovation in the style as it’s reason for seeing a relative decline in recent years. Then the article goes on to talk about “black Barleywine”. It’s some new take on a classic we should all look out for. One of the brewers of this styles saying it’s like a stout but without being roasty. Leaning on the malt bill of Schwartzbier over that of imperial stout. Dark, but not roasty and burnt, etc. And subsequently as if an “oh, by the way”, it’s also aged in whiskey barrels. Most if not all examples they mentioned were aged in whiskey barrels. The article of course mentions how, relative to Barleywine, stouts have exploded in popularity in recent years. Everything from BBL aged stouts, to BBL aged breakfast stouts, to BBL aged pastry stouts, to… you get it. Stouts haven’t become popular lately. BBL aged beer has become popular. It’s not special anymore. It seems to now be the spoonful of sugar that helps the dark beer go down. So for all the talk about how Barleywine has found some sort of new life in a darker form of itself (also ahem, aged in whiskey barrels), should we be that surprised?
Now don’t get me wrong. Innovation is not bad. Moving things forward is not bad. But I can’t help but feel a sense of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” sometimes. Hazy IPA didn’t “fix” anything wrong with IPA. It just created a new thing. But we unfortunately didn’t see it that way. We called it an “IPA”, and necessarily made it compete with what others knew as IPA.
Semantics can be important. I still remember when “session IPA” was becoming a thing, and how many people didn’t understand how it wasn’t just pale ale. Cold IPA is a thing now. And people still debate about what it means. It’s IPL but at ale temps, but tastes just like a west coast IPA? So how is it not just a WCIPA? I get both sides of the argument. Similarly with this whole black Barleywine thing. It sounds to me like an ale-fermented Baltic Porter, that also apparently had to be aged in whiskey barrels to be good.
Anyway, to make a long story longer. I think most of us that b*tch about change aren’t mad about new things. We get mad about the things we love being replaced by something else. Especially when we feel like the narrative becomes that the things we love are inherently bad, wrong, or boring. Classics are classics for a reason. There’s nothing wrong with that. But the nature of craft is to keep innovating. There’s nothing wrong with that either. This doesn’t have to be a zero sum game.
Craft beer and home brewing were at their best when there was a healthy balance between homage and innovation. Let’s not forget that. Don’t dismiss what’s new because it breaks the rules. But also, don’t dismiss what’s old because it’s “old”. Like it or not there is wisdom in what came before us.
If we want to “improve” upon IPA by making it soft and fruity, let’s call it it’s own thing. If we want to “improve” upon stout by making it sweet and sugary, let’s call it it’s own new thing. If you want to make “black Barleywine” let’s make room for it as it’s own thing. It’s not an improvement on something that was already great just because it wasn’t what you came up drinking. There’s plenty of room for both things to exist and to create space for each thing to occupy from now until forever.
Now don’t get me wrong. Innovation is not bad. Moving things forward is not bad. But I can’t help but feel a sense of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” sometimes. Hazy IPA didn’t “fix” anything wrong with IPA. It just created a new thing. But we unfortunately didn’t see it that way. We called it an “IPA”, and necessarily made it compete with what others knew as IPA.
Semantics can be important. I still remember when “session IPA” was becoming a thing, and how many people didn’t understand how it wasn’t just pale ale. Cold IPA is a thing now. And people still debate about what it means. It’s IPL but at ale temps, but tastes just like a west coast IPA? So how is it not just a WCIPA? I get both sides of the argument. Similarly with this whole black Barleywine thing. It sounds to me like an ale-fermented Baltic Porter, that also apparently had to be aged in whiskey barrels to be good.
Anyway, to make a long story longer. I think most of us that b*tch about change aren’t mad about new things. We get mad about the things we love being replaced by something else. Especially when we feel like the narrative becomes that the things we love are inherently bad, wrong, or boring. Classics are classics for a reason. There’s nothing wrong with that. But the nature of craft is to keep innovating. There’s nothing wrong with that either. This doesn’t have to be a zero sum game.
Craft beer and home brewing were at their best when there was a healthy balance between homage and innovation. Let’s not forget that. Don’t dismiss what’s new because it breaks the rules. But also, don’t dismiss what’s old because it’s “old”. Like it or not there is wisdom in what came before us.
If we want to “improve” upon IPA by making it soft and fruity, let’s call it it’s own thing. If we want to “improve” upon stout by making it sweet and sugary, let’s call it it’s own new thing. If you want to make “black Barleywine” let’s make room for it as it’s own thing. It’s not an improvement on something that was already great just because it wasn’t what you came up drinking. There’s plenty of room for both things to exist and to create space for each thing to occupy from now until forever.
Last edited:
If the quality's not there, why would I go back? Give me a few true-to-form German, Belgian and British styles.
