I uninvite myself to brew days... Do you?

[Yuri_Rage]

Nope. I enjoy attending others' brew days. If they do something I wouldn't, I might offer advice. If they don't take it, I just give them a little Edmund Fitzgerald and move on.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I think Kombat's general idea that palates have changed to meet with more desirable beers is a solid one. I think anyone from the old days would find a beer they liked much better today as a result of knowledge and skill refining. Then again, we also intentionally inoculate our beer with brett when we are looking for that quality. But at this point it's intentional.

I would concede to say that palate have changed to meet with more varieties of beer through evolutionary changes in barley, hops, and yeast strain selectivity. But to convey that 1000 years ago palates were so unrefined that they could tolerate sh!t is absurd. I have no doubt that advances in brewing have taken beer to places that people were not able to go 1000 year ago but based solely on the numerous literary praises it was still something people yearned for.

 

[DSorenson]

I love it. I've finally started one of "those" threads.

 

[Homercidal]

I can certainly understand the OP's frustration when he sees what many here would consider BASIC best practices being dismissed out of hand.

And yet I also know that with the multitude of methods and options, new brewers can feel overwhelmed. Perhaps they are so focused on one or two matters to give much though to others. The excitement of that latest recipe might be driving them to rush into a brewday without regard for the fundamentals that will improve ANY recipe.

I've been there. I can see things that new brewers do that make me cringe a bit inside. But you know what? Maybe it will ok for them. Some people take baby steps. I am ashamed today to admit how many years I brewed without any real form of temp control. Is it better than obsessing over temp control? Maybe, maybe not.

That headspace problem *might* be a problem. Yes, obviously if the bucket were large enough to be used as a primary, it would have been BEST used at the primary. Then again, if the beer did not fill the carboy up to the neck, it hardly makes a difference for a couple of weeks of aging, unless they somehow purged the headspace with CO2.

From my point of view, this is a HOBBY. It is done for enjoyment. At the stage your friends are at, they are probably having a great time, and that is what is important. In time they will surely learn more, have the basics down and the excitement of creating the next award-wining Oak-Aged Double Bourbon Maple IPA will dwindle and a solid desire to improve their fundamental brewing techniques will set in.

I think the best thing you can do is to continue to brew with them, maybe even invite them to hang out while YOU brew, discussing why you do the things you do. If you are there when Larry, Moe, and Curly skip the aeration step before pitching yeast, just shake your head, take a drink of homebrew, and try to get over it. I think all of you will be happier in the end.

 

[TobyG]

tl;dr
Anyone else have this problem?

Nope. Half the fun of a club brew day is pointing at and mocking somebody else's recipes, techniques, etc. (in a good-natured way). We have several running jokes about 5+ step mashes due to a club brew day where somebody did a 5-step mash because that was the way they learned on their first AG batch, so they always did it. You should start suggesting 'ways to improve' and tell the guys that over-oak to keep adding MOAR OAK!! and that it's not barky enough yet since you can still taste some residual beer. But seriously, RDWHAHB.

 

[kombat]

So, Kombat, tell me, which of these or the various other poetic accounts of ale convey this disgust you are so certain about?

Permit me to draw on my old Discrete Mathematics studies and employ a rudimentary Proof by Contradiction.

If I'm wrong, then the only logical conclusion is that beer has not improved at all in several centuries, and was perfected several generations ago. None of the brewing advances in the past millennia (water treatment, mash pH, fermentation temperature control, studies of yeast health and pitch rate, fining and filtration, forced carbonation) have improved the actual flavour of the beer, but rather have been pursued purely for other motivations (such as reducing production costs or increasing batch yields of otherwise identical beer).

This is obviously false, therefore my original assertion that today's beer is superior to the beer of the middle/dark/prehistoric ages is proven.

 

[kombat]

based solely on the numerous literary praises [beer] was still something people yearned for.

Thousands and thousands of pages of prose were written praising men and women of the day (in the context of lust and passion), even though, for the most part, they had atrocious hygiene by today's standards, and generally smelled bad and were hairier (including the women, if you know what I mean).

Do you think William Shakespeare could not appreciate the superior aesthetics of Kate Upton versus Marie Antoinette?

They praised it because it was the best they had, at the time. They also thought baroque music was the peak of musical entertainment, and oil paint smeared on some canvas was the top of the art world. That doesn't mean they wouldn't soil their frilly britches if they ever saw an Ansel Adams print or watched "Avatar" in 3D.

 

[bob1852]

Example: fermenting in a carboy and then using a bucket with too much head space for secondary.

What an idiot. Everyone knows you don't need a secondary at all.

"For a quart of ale is a dish for a king" - William Shakespeare ‘A Winter’s Tale’ (1623)

"Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today." - Edgar Allan Poe
(1848)

"But if at church they would give some ale. And a pleasant fire our souls to regale. We’d sing and we’d pray all the live long day, Nor ever once from the church to stray." –William Blake

The last one was written prior to Blakes death in 1827. So, Kombat, tell me, which of these or the various other poetic accounts of ale convey this disgust you are so certain about?

so, wast it? yes?

Are you sure about that? Yes!

How can we ever really know? Literature.

so, was beer every bit as good then as it is today? Possibly, possibly not. But I can assure you they enjoyed it every bit as much.

You forgot:

"Beer if proof..." ~ Ben Franklin

 

[DSorenson]

Solid points Kombat, though you lost me on the old dudes lollygagging at kate upton. The idea of beauty is something that does change with time (fortunately for us: fat chicks used to be the tops), so I'm not sure if good ol' Billy would find his divining rod "over nine-thousand" over Kate Upton. Some guys like it when girls hide their ankles.

Though I'd love to hear the "Thong Song" performed in Elizabethan English.

But you are right, improvements in beer were made because of the desire for a better product, or at least by accident and then recreated for a better product.

 

[dobe12]

Permit me to draw on my old Discrete Mathematics studies and employ a rudimentary Proof by Contradiction.

If I'm wrong, then the only logical conclusion is that beer has not improved at all in several centuries, and was perfected several generations ago. None of the brewing advances in the past millennia (water treatment, mash pH, fermentation temperature control, studies of yeast health and pitch rate, fining and filtration, forced carbonation) have improved the actual flavour of the beer, but rather have been pursued purely for other motivations (such as reducing production costs or increasing batch yields of otherwise identical beer).

This is obviously false, therefore my original assertion that today's beer is superior to the beer of the middle/dark/prehistoric ages is proven.

But since they didn't know any better back then because none of these advances in brewing had happened yet, they wouldn't know what they were drinking was subpar compared to our current standards. Hence, I'm sure they enjoyed what they were drinking.

If all you had to choose from was nasty brown water that would literally make you sick and possibly kill you, bud light would taste like the heaven.

 

[LandoLincoln]

Thousands and thousands of pages of prose were written praising men and women of the day (in the context of lust and passion), even though, for the most part, they had atrocious hygiene by today's standards, and generally smelled bad and were hairier (including the women, if you know what I mean).

Do you think William Shakespeare could not appreciate the superior aesthetics of Kate Upton versus Marie Antoinette?

They praised it because it was the best they had, at the time. They also thought baroque music was the peak of musical entertainment, and oil paint smeared on some canvas was the top of the art world. That doesn't mean they wouldn't soil their frilly britches if they ever saw an Ansel Adams print or watched "Avatar" in 3D.

Maybe we're getting a little off-topic here. I could be wrong.

 

[JBOGAN]

Bud Light or dysentery, damn you Bud Light you finally pulled me in.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

... improvements in beer were made because of the desire for a better profit.

ftfy

Which is still the case even in this century, and will always be the case for centuries to come.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Thousands and thousands of pages of prose were written praising men and women of the day (in the context of lust and passion), even though, for the most part, they had atrocious hygiene by today's standards, and generally smelled bad and were hairier (including the women, if you know what I mean).

Do you think William Shakespeare could not appreciate the superior aesthetics of Kate Upton versus Marie Antoinette?

They praised it because it was the best they had, at the time. They also thought baroque music was the peak of musical entertainment, and oil paint smeared on some canvas was the top of the art world. That doesn't mean they wouldn't soil their frilly britches if they ever saw an Ansel Adams print or watched "Avatar" in 3D.

hygeine by todays standard is driven hard by employment and supported by air conditioning.

I suspect William shakespear would have thought Kate Upton were ill and disfigured given the general shape of women historically.

Oil paint smeared on some canvas still is the top of the art world, billions of dollars in trade proves it.

None of this proves that beer was subpar and drank only because they were no better options.

 

[kombat]

If all you had to choose from was nasty brown water that would literally make you sick and possibly kill you, bud light would taste like the heaven.

I nominate this as BMC's next big advertising campaign slogan.

 

[DSorenson]

Originally Posted by DSorenson
... improvements in beer were made because of the desire for a better profit.

ftfy

Which is still the case even in this century, and will always be the case for centuries to come.

I think I meant product?

 

[lowtones84]

Although there are definitely some advances in modern brewing that are great, I think the past has a lot to teach us. Why are craft brewers starting to turn back to multi-strain cultures, culturing local wild yeasts, aging in oak barrels, etc.? To me even very well done modern craft brews can be a little one dimensional and lose their interest after a few sips, and it leaves me hunting down Fantome or traditional lambic and geuze, or my homebrewed gruit. Of course there are some great advances in brewing technology, but it's dangerous to discount what past artists/craftpersons have done as inferior (in any art/craft).

ANYHOW, that's not what this thread is about I usually don't brew with my others, but those friends that do brew talk brewing with me. I always offer advice if they are asking for it, or explain how I do something and the logic behind it. Like others have said, it's all about presentation. Perhaps just see if they're willing to change one thing during brew-day that you suggest. And if not, who cares? They're friends, get in on their craziness

 

[kombat]

hygeine by todays standard is driven hard by employment and supported by air conditioning.

Fact is, it's improved. The reason is irrelevant. A 1700's man would think a 2014 woman looked and smelled like an angel.

I suspect William shakespear would have thought Kate Upton were ill and disfigured given the general shape of women historically.

Social conventions of the time equated a little chubbiness with wealth. However, outright obesity was still considered unattractive, and athletic builds were held in even higher esteem.

Oil paint smeared on some canvas still is the top of the art world, billions of dollars in trade proves it.

Surely you're not serious, are you? Are James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Michael Bay drawing millions of people into art galleries for hundred-million-dollar opening weekends of their latest art exhibitions? Are there 57 channels on my TV devoted to the art world? (Is there even one?) There are multiple channels devoted to music and movies, but nothing on traditional painting. And you seriously wrote that it's the "top of the art world?" How many millions of people tuned in to watch the Grammies? The Oscars? The Emmys? Heck, even the Tony awards? Now how many people give 2 sh*ts about an art auction?

"Top of the art world." OK.

None of this proves that beer was subpar and drank only because they were no better options.

I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

 

[bob1852]

But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

It doesn't mean they would've either.

Some people still prefer a fried chicken foot to "perfect" fois gras....

 

[DSorenson]

fight! fight! fight! fight!... *reaches for homebrew*

 

[Hopinista]

I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

If ancient beer tasted anything like DFH Midas Touch, it was gross.

 

[rekoob]

This might be a little off topic but no, I don't uninvite myself.
back to... umm... whatever it is we were talking about.

 

[ericbw]

I would concede to say that palate have changed to meet with more varieties of beer through evolutionary changes in barley, hops, and yeast strain selectivity. But to convey that 1000 years ago palates were so unrefined that they could tolerate sh!t is absurd. I have no doubt that advances in brewing have taken beer to places that people were not able to go 1000 year ago but based solely on the numerous literary praises it was still something people yearned for.

Hops may not have been used in beer for "thousands" of years. It might only be hundreds of years, or a thousand-ish. So it would make sense that beer from 400BC was surely less hoppy, and maybe less aromatic than it is today. So it had to be different, but would a drinker from that time be disgusted by the hop aroma of an American IPA? Would William Blake or William Shakespeare be turned off by something as run of the mill as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? But hops are more prominent now.

Crystal malt is a relatively new invention, isn't it? And an ale without crystal... that means no Irish reds, no pales. So crystal malt makes beer different and probably "better."

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Fact is, it's improved. The reason is irrelevant. A 1700's man would think a 2014 woman looked and smelled like an angel.



Social conventions of the time equated a little chubbiness with wealth. However, outright obesity was still considered unattractive, and athletic builds were held in even higher esteem.



Surely you're not serious, are you? Are James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Michael Bay drawing millions of people into art galleries for hundred-million-dollar opening weekends of their latest art exhibitions? Are there 57 channels on my TV devoted to the art world? (Is there even one?) There are multiple channels devoted to music and movies, but nothing on traditional painting. And you seriously wrote that it's the "top of the art world?" How many millions of people tuned in to watch the Grammies? The Oscars? The Emmys? Heck, even the Tony awards? Now how many people give 2 sh*ts about an art auction?

"Top of the art world." OK.



I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

1700's vs 2014, highly subjective. Any man who thinks Lady GaGa looks like an angel needs to see an optician.

However, the limits of outright obesity were much higher than today while the minima of what was considered athletic were lower.

James Cameron and Steven Speilberg aren't drawing individuals in to spend millions on singular peices. No, they are spending millions to bring people in at $12 a peice. And in no way will Steven Speilbergs E.T. command the same resale in another 50 years as would a Mona Lisa.

So, what in inherent to wine that would cause it be any better than beer, specifically ale? Nothing. The fermentation process would have been the same.

 

[balrog]

Looks like it wouldn't take much of a nudge to shift this over to parenting styles

I myself always welcome advice in this new hobby of mine--I use much that I hear but not necessarily all. If it's offered to be helpful, it is appreciated for its intent.

 

[Tarks]

I get what the OP is saying, I'm very much like this. It's a part of me that I want to change about myself. In situations like this I take a few deep breaths, a few swigs of beer and try to sit back and enjoy the moment. Try to give some constructive advise.

 

[hunter_le five]

Maybe we're getting a little off-topic here. I could be wrong.

Dead wrong. The OP was off topic.... retroactively.... from the start.... or something. Kombat, et al, have merely attempted to get this thread back on track.... I think.

 

[TimmyWit]

So, let me get this straight... OP is a time traveler with a great appreciation for art who was invited to a brew day with our ancestors. He got offended by their processes and went on a rant about head space and mash ratio. Our ancestors didn't know what he was talking about and frankly didn't give a crap. They told him "RDWHAHB" but OP didn't get the RDW part so he left the party and returned to 2014 to start this thread.

To answer the question, no I wouldn't uninvite myself. A brew day is a great excuse to hang out with your buddies and drink beer no matter how much you disagree with their processes.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Hops may not have been used in beer for "thousands" of years. It might only be hundreds of years, or a thousand-ish. So it would make sense that beer from 400BC was surely less hoppy, and maybe less aromatic than it is today. So it had to be different, but would a drinker from that time be disgusted by the hop aroma of an American IPA? Would William Blake or William Shakespeare be turned off by something as run of the mill as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? But hops are more prominent now.

Crystal malt is a relatively new invention, isn't it? And an ale without crystal... that means no Irish reds, no pales. So crystal malt makes beer different and probably "better."

There are records of the use of hops, in beer, since 1079. As an aside, I have had a Heather ale and thought it was fantastic.

The patented Crystal malt is relatively new. The documented origin of Porter was in 1700's. So, it is reasonable to expect that while they may not have been calling it Crystal, or Black Patent, or Brown ... there was knowledge of the effect that roasting malt had on beer flavor.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

If ancient beer tasted anything like DFH Midas Touch, it was gross.

And if 90% of what DFH makes is a prime example of todays improvements, then my opinion is that we have regressed.