What does "good beer" mean?

[Cape Brewing]

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)

 

[Spartan1979]

... 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.

 

[TheHopfather]

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.

 

[hunter_le five]

Based on my brief stint at the Beer Advocate site, everything has notes of barnyard and horseblanket.

 

[iijakii]

And with hues of periwinkle and lacing reminiscent of a cool winter day at the beach.

 

[Hoppy2bmerry]

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:

 

[bernardsmith]

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.

 

[303Dan]

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.

 

[bobeer]

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.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

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.

 

[mattdee1]

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.

Ask 100 mothers why they buy 2 loaves of Wonderbread every week and most of them will probably answer with something along the lines of "because my kids eat lots of sammiches and I go through bread quickly lol."

What they're NOT likely to do is answer with a list of traits that make Wonderbread "good" compared to the other choices. They just need bread--a common household commodity--so they buy a name they recognize and go on with their day.

Bud Light sells in large volumes to people who treat beer as a commodity in much the same way, and in my experience, most of them will openly admit that is how they view beer. That being the case, I don't believe that Bud Light sales figures say anything meaningful at all about how good the beer is; they just show that Bud Light ticks the following boxes:

- readily available
- reasonably priced
- inoffensive
- familiar

For shoppers who are completely incurious about the myriad possibilities of beer but need a way to get a buzz at the neighborhood barbecue, it gets the job done.

Now, there is still the question: of all the BMC/AAL brands out there, why does Bud Light sell the best? I know most people fancy themselves too smart to be manipulated by marketing, but... they are manipulated by marketing. The indifferent shopper that is looking to buy beer but, at the same time, "doesn't care about beer" is the perfect target for savvy marketing.

Also, it's interesting how Bud Light is arguably one of the most watery, flavorless common beers out there. That's telling; it suggests that sales in that demographic are dictated not by what the product has, but what it doesn't have--flavors.

 

[BGBC]

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.

Wait, what thread am I in? Didn't think this was the AB Super Bowl commercial thread.

 

[BGBC]

Taste is subjective, whether it is describing good restaurants, wine, sex, books, or beer. Any review, even blind tastings, will be subjective, since tastes and preferences differ. Reviewers are influenced by a variety of factors, both historical and whatever happened to be occurring when writing their review. Anyone interpreting any review as 'fact' is an idiot.

That said, reviews still serve several worthwhile purposes, but should always be taken with a grain of salt (or a heaping of horse blanket).

 

[kombat]

I don't really care about adhering to BJCP guidelines, especially as to whether or not by beers are "good".

You may not, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the main reasons the BJCP style guidelines were developed was to allow beers to be objectively compared.

Without the style guidelines, it's rather pointless to even attempt to compare beers against each other in terms of quality. You can say you like a beer with a bunch of diacetyl, and therefore it's "good" in your opinion. Maybe I like my hamburgers the way I make them (the secret ingredient is sheep manure!) but you don't particularly care for them. Without an objective set of standards to compare them against, it just becomes entirely personal preference, and no meaningful ranking can be assigned.

 

[z-bob]

Also, it's interesting how Bud Light is arguably one of the most watery, flavorless common beers out there. That's telling; it suggests that sales in that demographic are dictated not by what the product has, but what it doesn't have--flavors.

It's a good example of the style, and a very difficult style; if there are any flaws at all, they stand out because there's nothing for them to hide behind.

Back to the original question, I'll answer 3, The brewer accomplished exactly what was intended. The same beer may be good or bad, depending on how the intent changes. Example: "Hey, this beer is pretty good, I think I'll enter it in a contest". Now the judge's opinion matters; previously it did not. Or you offer some to your friends and most of them think it tastes like ass. (there's always one guy who'll drink anything)

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

As Dr. Bamforth said recently on the Brewing Network.

People love the three letters. IPA is a great example. Why do you think they call Pale Ales, session IPAs now instead (don't fool yourself, its just a heavily hopped slightly lower gravity Pale Ale). Put up on your tap list that you have such and such Session IPA, and the same beer but list it as a Pale Ale, I'd bet good money the session IPA will sell more than the Pale Ale.

Bud Light, three letters. "Gimme a Bud light" "Gimme an IPA", my personal take on why (partially) Bud light is the best selling beer.

What makes a good beer? Something I'll pick up again to drink for the taste, instead of just to keep the buzz going (or would pick up and drink again if supply/access is an issue). If we are only talking about "good" beer then I think that's all that's required to define it as good. Trying to go further you end up in the world of intangibles. (I would add one more small thing, a "good" craft beer is a craft beer that can convert BMC drinkers to craft beer)

Amazing/world changing beer? Then there needs to be something else more intangible about the beer and probably cant be quantified in words.

Edit: Nothing should be taken as a knock against IPAs and the IPA trend in general.

 

[Spartan1979]

Ask 100 mothers why they buy 2 loaves of Wonderbread every week and most of them will probably answer with something along the lines of "because my kids eat lots of sammiches and I go through bread quickly lol."

What they're NOT likely to do is answer with a list of traits that make Wonderbread "good" compared to the other choices. They just need bread--a common household commodity--so they buy a name they recognize and go on with their day.

I would have answered that "It builds strong bodies 12 ways."

Gawd, I'm old.

 

[BGBC]

Bud Light, eight letters.

ftfy

 

[TheHopfather]

What they're NOT likely to do is answer with a list of traits that make Wonderbread "good" compared to the other choices. They just need bread--a common household commodity--so they buy a name they recognize and go on with their day.

You can dress it up however you want, make analogies to bread, cars, phones, suits. It doesn't matter. Bud Light is good enough to convince millions of people to part with their money every year. You may not like it, you may not agree, but millions of others say you are wrong. Selling any product in a volume like that says that product must be "good".

When trying to define a baseline for "good" on an entirely subjective matter, in my humble opinion, popularity is all you have to work with.

 

[blizz81]

You may not, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the main reasons the BJCP style guidelines were developed was to allow beers to be objectively compared.

Without the style guidelines, it's rather pointless to even attempt to compare beers against each other in terms of quality. You can say you like a beer with a bunch of diacetyl, and therefore it's "good" in your opinion. Maybe I like my hamburgers the way I make them (the secret ingredient is sheep manure!) but you don't particularly care for them. Without an objective set of standards to compare them against, it just becomes entirely personal preference, and no meaningful ranking can be assigned.

Sure. Obviously there's no denying that the BJCP is a fairly matured organization and a moderately successful attempt at some sort of standardization.


But to say:

"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)."


...in the context of this nebulous philosophical discussion that will reach no conclusion or consensus is to

1) Trip over the very notion of the discussion by implying that with homebrewed beers, it's easy to determine what's good or what's not good, as we have this one set of standards humans came up with, and then humans try to enforce. But in commercial beers, it somehow becomes impossible to determine what is a good beer. (I believe we're no closer or farther away from deciding whether a homebrewed beer is "good" vs. a commercial beer)

2) Overlook that many homebrewers do not give two ****s about BJCP styles towards the end goal of defining their beer as "good". I would argue that the percentage of homebrewers in this bucket is probably about 85-90%. Moreover, the notion that in commercial brewing, style guidelines go out the window (as they should)...heh...I would also argue this is not only much more prominent in homebrewing than commercial brewing, but also is it not true for the larger, more heralded commercial competitions, style guidelines are just as enforced (ex. BA Beer Style Guidelines -> GABF)? Maybe not so in your average everyday hipster Masshole beer blogger's reviews, but...

 

[ajdelange]

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread carefully but a very important point seems to have been missed. Good, better and best are judged according to how well something meets some criterion of optimality and you cannot discuss whether something is better than something else without specifying what that criterion is. Some of the posts have mentioned some of the common criteria. When I am carrying on about this I usually list the following though there are doubtless others:

1) You like it
2) Your 'customers' (spouse, friends, mother in law....) like it
3) It is authentic
4) It closely matches some description in some guideline (e.g. BJCP styles)
5) It wins ribbons in contests
6) It sells in high volume at good margin

I heard the following at an investors meeting: "This really isn't a very good Saison but I don't care as long as it sells well." That plainly illustrates a conflict. In terms of 1) it was not good beer. In terms of 6) it was.

Is Mozart better than Bach?

 

[jlinz]

I agree! That is exactly the point. Things that are good have no conceptual criteria that we can accurately point to. We try to define what is good about x beer, for instance. We can assign a million adjectives but none seem to quite capture it. Our adjectives may be in disagreement with others but no one can put their finger on it. There is no objective criteria to help us articulate what we are experiencing correctly. The resulting experience of being at a loss but also very excited about what is going on is what makes us call something good.

To simplify it, our experience goes beyond our ability to understand it.

 

[BGBC]

You can dress it up however you want, make analogies to bread, cars, phones, suits. It doesn't matter. Bud Light is good enough to convince millions of people to part with their money every year. You may not like it, you may not agree, but millions of others say you are wrong. Selling any product in a volume like that says that product must be "good".

When trying to define a baseline for "good" on an entirely subjective matter, in my humble opinion, popularity is all you have to work with.

'good' is not the same as 'good enough' and 'popular' is not the same as 'good' either.

I might buy a Starbucks coffee, not because it is 'good' (it's burnt and cr*ppy), but because it is convenient (there's one on every corner) and 'good enough' (it has caffeine).

 

[Cape Brewing]

Sure. Obviously there's no denying that the BJCP is a fairly matured organization and a moderately successful attempt at some sort of standardization.


But to say:

"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)."


...in the context of this nebulous philosophical discussion that will reach no conclusion or consensus is to

1) Trip over the very notion of the discussion by implying that with homebrewed beers, it's easy to determine what's good or what's not good, as we have this one set of standards humans came up with, and then humans try to enforce. But in commercial beers, it somehow becomes impossible to determine what is a good beer. (I believe we're no closer or farther away from deciding whether a homebrewed beer is "good" vs. a commercial beer)

2) Overlook that many homebrewers do not give two ****s about BJCP styles towards the end goal of defining their beer as "good". I would argue that the percentage of homebrewers in this bucket is probably about 85-90%. Moreover, the notion that in commercial brewing, style guidelines go out the window (as they should)...heh...I would also argue this is not only much more prominent in homebrewing than commercial brewing, but also is it not true for the larger, more heralded commercial competitions, style guidelines are just as enforced (ex. BA Beer Style Guidelines -> GABF)? Maybe not so in your average everyday hipster Masshole beer blogger's reviews, but...

Not sure I ever said it was easy to determine what is good in homebrewing and impossible to do so for commercial. Nor did I ever say that every homebrewer is dead-set on adhering exactly to style guidelines.

That said... I think adherence to guidelines is dramatically more prevalent within homebrewing. Does that mean everyone is doing it? No, not remotely but I think a fair number of homebrewers are trying to either clone beers or nail down techniques are are specific to styles... at least a huge percentage of all of the homebrewers in my old club were. Maybe we were the exception.

In commercial brewing, I don't think many breweries care at all about guidelines other than when it comes to describing the brewer's intent to the consumer. You typically can't simply make up a beer, call it something nebulous ("Jump Back" is one of our beers) and simply expect people to have any idea what it is. You have to call it something... (in that particular case in IPA) but I don't believe many commercial breweries are intentionally trying to position their beers within any narrow bands of a style guideline. If they make one that does fit and it can go to GABF... awesome... but that's not the goal.

Again... I appreciate that's not the goal of homebrewers either... I just think trying to adhere to style is more prevalent, that's all

 

[ajdelange]

'popular' is not the same as 'good' either.

It very certainly is if popularity is the criterion of optimality and that seems like a very acceptable criterion to me. It's certainly as valid as some of the others.

The guy who says beer A is better than beer B has made a statement that is meaningless to you unless he tells you what his criterion is. If he does state that then you are in a position to decide if his criterion maps into yours. If it does, his declaration means something to you. If it doesn't, then his declaration is worthless.

If you ask whether beer A is better than beer B you must state what you criterion is or the interrogated person has no way to meaningfully answer your question.

The fact that this mot important aspect has not been even mentioned here means that most people cannot tell you whether beer A is better than beer B but only give you their personal opinion, criterion 1) in my earlier post and that, therefore, most 'reviews' are so much noise.

 

[Cape Brewing]

It very certainly is if popularity is the criterion of optimality and that seems like a very acceptable criterion to me. It's certainly as valid as some of the others.

The guy who says beer A is better than beer B has made a statement that is meaningless to you unless he tells you what his criterion is. If he does state that then you are in a position to decide if his criterion maps into yours. If it does, his declaration means something to you. If it doesn't, then his declaration is worthless.

If you ask whether beer A is better than beer B you must state what you criterion is or the interrogated person has no way to meaningfully answer your question.

The fact that this mot important aspect has not been even mentioned here means that most people cannot tell you whether beer A is better than beer B but only give you their personal opinion, criterion 1) in my earlier post and that, therefore, most 'reviews' are so much noise.

Agree 100% and maybe that's what I'm really trying to figure out... what is the right criteria.

.... and this is where I keep coming back to brewer intent. I think everything else is so wildly subjective, that I don't know that it means anything. Now... someone judging "brewer's intent", of course... that's subjective too but I don't think to the same degree. I think it takes as much of the subjectivity out of the equation as possible.

I think "I'm not a big fan of cascade but I see what the brewer was doing and can appreciate this as a great beer... even though I may not care for it that much."..... I think.... is a much better view than "Stouts suck!"

 

[TheHopfather]

'good' is not the same as 'good enough' and 'popular' is not the same as 'good' either.

Well that is the crux of the problem now isn't it? "Good" was never defined, in fact it seems the entire basis of this thread is trying to define "good". Are you the arbiter of all things "good"?

Everyone can and will define "good beer" differently. Without any set standard I think that popular is as good as, if not better, than any other metric. People just get upset when they hear that Bud Light is "good". Market leaders tend to make a good product for the masses, that may not be good for you, but it is for lots of others.

 

[jlinz]

It very certainly is if popularity is the criterion of optimality and that seems like a very acceptable criterion to me. It's certainly as valid as some of the others.

The guy who says beer A is better than beer B has made a statement that is meaningless to you unless he tells you what his criterion is. If he does state that then you are in a position to decide if his criterion maps into yours. If it does, his declaration means something to you. If it doesn't, then his declaration is worthless.

If you ask whether beer A is better than beer B you must state what you criterion is or the interrogated person has no way to meaningfully answer your question.

The fact that this mot important aspect has not been even mentioned here means that most people cannot tell you whether beer A is better than beer B but only give you their personal opinion, criterion 1) in my earlier post and that, therefore, most 'reviews' are so much noise.

Yet, it seems to me that if we make popularity the criteria we then can only say that many people like something, not that it is good per se. After all, people can be wrong and many can be at the same time. See Bud Light as your example. To say that many people like Bud Light is not the same thing as saying that it is good. It is simply to say that many people like it. The other problem here is that 'good' sneaks in the backdoor, since we have simply decided that the public's opinion on something is what good really is, but how do we know that without knowing what good is?

 

[LandoLincoln]

I also think it's a really interesting topic

Not really. Taste is subjective. BJCP judges get together and skew their own personal results in order to come to a more common score. Lots of people have told me that Bell's Hopslam is one of the best IPA's out there, but I think it sucks and I won't drink it. Are they right? Am I right? Yes. We are both right.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Popularity in this case is correlated to how many people vote on a beer with their money. The only way this measure is valid is if all the beer costs the same. I would wager that if bud light cost 8.99 a six pack that there would be a lot of converts to craft beer. It is popular because it is good enough and significantly cheaper, but not because it is the best (gooderest gooderer) beer.