What does "good beer" mean?

[Cape Brewing]

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.

But by that logic... everyone's opinion and therefore, all of the "rankings", "ratings", hype, etc is all completely meaningless since any one beer can be great and suck at the same time.

.... and I think that's part of my point... The way beer is "rated", I think, is meaningless. Like I was saying before, i don't know what good and bad mean.... because there is no criteria set for that judgement.

I think craft beer overall would benefit from some sort of criteria being set opposed to the alternative... Which is all that opinion and effort being meaningless.

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.

 

[LandoLincoln]

But by that logic... everyone's opinion and therefore, all of the "rankings", "ratings", hype, etc is all completely meaningless since any one beer can be great and suck at the same time.

I think you're onto something.

 

[BGBC]

Are you the arbiter of all things "good"?

Yes, inasmuch as you are as well, since the definition is clearly subjective.

But don't mess with me, or I'll slice you

 

[jlinz]

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.[/QUOTE]

Great thread by the way!

I do believe there is. Many people have thought I'm a loon for the point I'm about to make but hear me out.

I think we go about everything backwards when we consider matters of taste. We try to setup conceptual criteria to classify an experience, e.g., bjcp judging and beer and then stamp them on the experience. What I think we should do instead is deem those things, beers, good that defy our ability to classify them on the level of thought but are still highly pleasing. That way we recognize thought has reached its limit through our experience of the beer. If those highly familiar with beer cannot conceptually articulate what is going on when they drink a beer but are pleased nonetheless, it is a good beer.

We are familiar with this sort of idea already. We often say "Ah! There is nothing like this beer!" by which we mean this beer is very good.

 

[BGBC]

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

 

[BGBC]

If those highly familiar with beer cannot conceptually articulate what is going on when they drink a beer but are pleased nonetheless, it is a good beer.

So by that logic, a beer that is a classic example of any given defined style is not a good beer, because people highly familiar with beer can clearly articulate what they are tasting?

We are familiar with this sort of idea already. We often say "Ah! There is nothing like this beer!" by which we mean this beer is very good.

Unless there's nothing like it because it's a sh*tty beer.

 

[jlinz]

So by that logic, a beer that is a classic example of any given defined style is not a good beer, because people highly familiar with beer can clearly articulate what they are tasting?



Unless there's nothing like it because it's a sh*tty beer.

It can be a good beer, but just because it matches the guidelines does not make it so. I imagine many match the guidelines.

****ty beer is similar. It is an experience of revulsion that defies categorization.

 

[Brettomomyces]

Well eventually robots will just do all the tasting for us anyway

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/22/this-robot-tastes-better-than-a-wine-critic/

 

[TheHopfather]

Does anyone know how they do it in the wine world?

I would agree that beer ranking sites are dumb. I'm still looking for that horse blanket beer I've read so much about, it's my whale. If you enjoy drinking a beer it is good. Don't get hung up on the rankings. I managed to get a couple of Westy 12's home with me from Europe this summer, opened one on Christmas. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[jschein]

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

Yes and a brewer can bring the same beer to all 4 and not get the same score.
One could be best of show at one judging and not even crack the top five at another.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Since you were talking about brewers intent I think a recent score sheet I got back is relevant to the discussion.

Entered a beer into British Brown Ale category even though I knew stylistically it was missing some major aspects, but it was the closest category I could select (it was brown, made with British yeast, and mostly British ingredients).

By the score I got (30) you could say its not a good beer. Though on the other hand if you look further there were not any major flaws with the beer, just stylistically out of guideline. Not hoppy enough, and a little too much carbonation, and because of the lack of hops it tended more towards the sweet side of a brown ale. So I could be down on myself and think I made a bad beer, but I was intending to clone the Rogue Hazelnut Nectar brown ale and I accomplished it rather well I thought, the hazelnut wasn't strong enough in my opinion to enter as a clone beer(and will be one of my wedding beers I brew).

Then again just because I brewed what I intended to brew doesn't mean I deserve a medal in competition. Also fits into the "I'll drink another" category of being a "good" beer.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

Again... that's why I continuously go back to brewer's intent. I don't think it is a perfect solution by any stretch but I don't know of a better one.

 

[BGBC]

If there is a way to have most people look at a beer subjectively under some sort of criteria... I think it would be a big benefit.

Seriously? Pick your imperfect poison: GABF, World Beer Cup, BJCP, CAMRA

Yes and a brewer can bring the same beer to all 4 and not get the same score.
One could be best of show at one judging and not even crack the top five at another.

Sooo, we're in agreement then?

 

[BGBC]

Again... that's why I continuously go back to brewer's intent. I don't think it is a perfect solution by any stretch but I don't know of a better one.

But a brewer could modify their stated 'intent' after the beer is actually brewed, similar to how a homebrewer could submit a 'bad' IPA (original intent) into the BJCP American Amber category (actual outcome) and have it be judged as a 'good' beer.

 

[Cape Brewing]

But a brewer could modify their stated 'intent' after the beer is actually brewed, similar to how a homebrewer could submit a 'bad' IPA (original intent) into the BJCP American Amber category (actual outcome) and have it be judged as a 'good' beer.

Good point... Hadn't thought of that..

 

[motobrewer]

yes but you can't have it both ways.

either you're asking for what aj describes, a strict set of criteria which beer is to be measured, or you're asking people for their feelings.

i personally think comparing beer to wine in this situation isn't very useful. in terms of this discussion, if you really think this is useful (I don't), in my opinion it might be easier to relate it to the gastronomy industry.

In cooking, there's basics. if i ask you to make an omelet in the french tradition, we all know what to expect. it's a very specific outcome. a chef may take some minor artistic licenses but if he strays to far from the model it won't be a french omelet anymore. There's a lot of "gourmet" food that isn't universally liked. Similar to your cantillon example, you can sit someone down in front of Jiro Ono, but if that guy happens to not like fish, he's not going to really care for the meal.

Why don't I think this is useful? I don't really know what the point is. And i don't mean to be negative for negative's sake, but there's enough "competitions" to fill the need, and I personally believe people should drink what they like. I get the whole "brewers intent" angle, and even as homebrewers we all sometimes get this. But what are your goals? Sure, you dream up a beer, brew it exactly as you planned, it turns out good, and you're happy. Then your buddy goes "eh, don't really like it" or "it's not my style". Ok, so what? Are you not going to brew it again?

Commercially it's a different angle but the mindset is the same. Your goals are (probably) different.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Maybe the definition of a good beer is simpler than we are digging at.

Question 1: Does the beer taste like vomit/band-aids/chemical/plastic/gasoline?

Answer: No.

Conclusion: Beer is probably good.

Answer: Yes.

Conclusion: Beer is not good.

If you literally cannot drink anymore because it tastes like vomit, then that's definitely a bad beer. Other kinds of off flavors, like diacetyl are not desirable in some beers, but is desirable in others.

So yes, Bud Light can be considered "good" beer by this measure. It might be watery and flavorless, and give you ultra-beer-farts the next day if you drink a dozen of them, but its not disgusting and making you throw up (unless you drink two dozen of them).

 

[BGBC]

Good point... Hadn't thought of that..

I'll quit while I'm ahead then

Maybe the definition of a good beer is simpler than we are digging at.

Question 1: Does the beer taste like vomit/band-aids/chemical/plastic/gasoline?

Answer: No.

Conclusion: Beer is probably good.

Answer: Yes.

Conclusion: Beer is not good.

If you literally cannot drink anymore because it tastes like vomit, then that's definitely a bad beer. Other kinds of off flavors, like diacetyl are not desirable in some beers, but is desirable in others.

So yes, Bud Light can be considered "good" beer by this measure. It might be watery and flavorless, and give you ultra-beer-farts the next day if you drink a dozen of them, but its not disgusting and making you throw up (unless you drink two dozen of them).

Not..going...to drag me....back...in

 

[Cape Brewing]

yes but you can't have it both ways.

either you're asking for what aj describes, a strict set of criteria which beer is to be measured, or you're asking people for their feelings.
.

I disagree... Only because of the example i was giving before. I'll give another one. I recently was given a "Bob Marleywine" to taste. It was a big barleywine "spiced" with exactly what the name would suggest.

It was a really "good beer" in my view... meaning I knew what he was trying to accomplish.. the beer was nice and clean, no technical issues at all. The "spice" was subtle on the finish... didn't smash you in the face.

That's sure as hell not up to any style guideline I've ever seen and, personally, that's not a flavor I like in a beer... but i told him it was a beautifully made beer, even though I wasn't a big fan... because I believed it was.

 

[Cape Brewing]

As I'm typing and thinking about it... maybe that's the question... can you have a beautifully made beer that is "bad"?

I think I would argue "no". If it is made perfectly, then I would argue that "your" personal taste in not liking it doesn't matter. You can certainly not like it... nothing wrong with that... but i don't think that in itself makes it "bad"

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

As I'm typing and thinking about it... maybe that's the question... can you have a beautifully made beer that is "bad"?

I think I would argue "no". If it is made perfectly, then I would argue that "your" personal taste in not liking it doesn't matter. You can certainly not like it... nothing wrong with that... but i don't think that in itself makes it "bad"

Then the only criteria we can use to determine if a beer is good or bad is if you can drink it without getting sick/killing you. Anything after that comes down to personal taste or other bias caused by the situation.

The old saying "hunger is the best spice" applies. Everything tastes good when you are starving. Since we have an abundance of subjectively "good" beer in the market it's tough to pick out a beer that's objectively "good". There's a lot of stouts on the market that are, to me, too ashy and roasty, but others might find that good and tasty, I can only say that those aren't good because to my palate they have too much roast.

 

[iijakii]

As I'm typing and thinking about it... maybe that's the question... can you have a beautifully made beer that is "bad"?

I think I would argue "no". If it is made perfectly, then I would argue that "your" personal taste in not liking it doesn't matter. You can certainly not like it... nothing wrong with that... but i don't think that in itself makes it "bad"

What the hell is a 'beautifully made beer'?

 

[joshesmusica]

My problem is that I'm always looking for a masterpiece for that style. I made an ESB that was technically perfectly according to style. I love it. Every commercial ESB I've tried (granted they are just the very commercial ones imported here), I would never buy another one.

There are many beers that I've tasted that were good, but they weren't outstanding, so I find myself not going back to them.

Or as another example, I'm always trying to find a way to like a certain style. I don't like saisons, yet I always try every saison my wife buys (she loves them), because I'm waiting for the one to convince me to like it. Same with IPAs. I've found one commercial IPA that I've liked, and even that one is just an average good beer for me. Oddly enough it's made by the most commercial brewery in this nation, Hansa. Every other IPA I've tried I've been disappointed with.

Then of course, there's the public's favorite type of competitions. Recently was at the "championship" version of that here in Norway (the winner got to brew with one of the bigger breweries here, Haandbryggeriet), and we were each given 3 plastic chips to drop in the buckets of the beers we liked. I happened to find two on the floor, so I got 5 votes. I tried every single beer in that place (over 100 beers, yeah a lot of people were drunk, and there was also a ton of beer poured out into buckets), and ended up going home with three chips still in my pocket. One I voted for because it was an Eisbock, and I've really been interested in attempting that style, but I honestly have no idea how it compares to others. The other vote was a guy who brought a Belgian trappist style that he had stored away for the last 6 years (he ended up winning). I only voted for him because if I had been storing a beer for that long, there's no way I'm bringing it to such a subjective competition. Oddly enough he won, and I truly believe it's only because of it being advertised so heavily as a 6-year old beer, and his guys who were helping at the stand were incredible salesmen. He himself was pretty shy and didn't talk with everyone that came by. Otherwise, it was even a really good version of the style. My wife loves Chimay, and even she stated how average his beer was. Other than those two, I found flaws in every single beer, or they were styles that I don't like, or both.

Point being, there's so many factors into what good is, as others have said, I don't think one could really ever come to a conclusion about it. It's too highly subjective.

 

[joshesmusica]

What I will say, which actually just struck me as rather odd, the only "crappy" style I'll drink are the cheap macro lagers/pilsners. It's that whole thing about the no flaws thing. It's light, crisp, no overwhelming flavors. It can go with almost every occasion. I'm one of those that strongly dislikes the macros, but I'll still drink them, even though I won't buy them.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

I think personal taste is too broad of a spectrum. good to me might not be good to the next person. just like all the folks that think BL is good beer and McD's is good food is quite contrary to what I think of good beer and food.

 

[1977Brewer]

I think personal taste is too broad of a spectrum. good to me might not be good to the next person. just like all the folks that think BL is good beer and McD's is good food is quite contrary to what I think of good beer and food.

Earth shattering stuff here, Billy. You should write a book.


I makes a good beer, is the answer we should have all typed, but haven't.

You're all goofs.

 

[Picker]

A good beer is when you'll have a second one.

I agree. One of my finest compliments was when I took some bottles of Cream of Three Crops to Thanksgiving dinner and offered one to a guest. He said he didn't like "fancy" beers, mostly just Bud Light, but accepted it anyway. Later when the host asked if he was ready for another beer he said "Yea, give me another of those home brews, those are good!"

 

[motobrewer]

I disagree... Only because of the example i was giving before. I'll give another one. I recently was given a "Bob Marleywine" to taste. It was a big barleywine "spiced" with exactly what the name would suggest.

It was a really "good beer" in my view... meaning I knew what he was trying to accomplish.. the beer was nice and clean, no technical issues at all. The "spice" was subtle on the finish... didn't smash you in the face.

That's sure as hell not up to any style guideline I've ever seen and, personally, that's not a flavor I like in a beer...but i told him it was a beautifully made beer, even though I wasn't a big fan... because I believed it was.

Yes, you've just redescribed your problem.

Different people have vastly different perspectives.

So while you're able to distinguish and compartmentalize different aspects of a beer, a BL drinker might just say "that's nasty" and move on. Even tho the same beer might not have any "technical flaws".

Also, that beer does sound nasty....

 

[Tactical-Brewer]

Good = Subjective, therefore impossible to define "Good Beer".

I'm sure this has been said already on the thread, but all well.

What one person loves, another hates and vice versa. Good is all in the eyes of the beerholder.

Tac

 

[bluemoose]

Some of my favorite beers were not beers I cared for the first time I tried them. I look at my children. Sometimes they try a food and don't like it. I ask they try a few times before they stop eating it entirely. My parents didn't do this and I missed out on some great foods.
Taste is often developed. How many people do you know that liked whiskey the first time they tried it. How many could appreciate the subtleties?

I think we can divide good beer into categories. The first would be beer that most people like the first time they try it, and would continue to drink. It has a quality that appeals to most palates.
The second would be a beer that has no obvious flaws that may not appeal to the masses, but is a strong representation of a particular style, or has a style all its own.
There are plenty of things that I don't care for. Many are simply because I have not developed a palate for those particular things, and don't care to. It doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed by others or considered great representations of their drink, food, etc.