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.
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.