What does "good beer" mean?

[bernardsmith]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Not sure I totally agree. Is that how movie or literary critics work? I am not sure. They don't use predefined "criteria", do they?, But they seem to be able to talk about how the artifact - the movie or the novel or poem -affects them. How its elements in the artifact work together (or not). If brewers or beer drinkers cannot articulate how a particular beer "works" - what its elements are and how they provide for the experience that the beer drinker has then I am not sure that the problem is with the nature of the world itself (your point) but the ability of the one doing the reporting...Now I think the problem with those doing the reporting is that the BJCP presents itself as the very heart and soul of the nature of any beer but those guidelines strike me (a contrarian) much like the way that genre in movies or literature or music are defined. Defining a movie as a horror or a thriller and then looking at particular examples of horror movies or thrillers in light of what makes the movie under review a thriller or a horror movie tells me not a thing about why I am enjoying the movie or being bored out my gourd or why I might enjoy the movie or why I can expect to doze off..

 

[TheBigLebrewsk1]

Great thread by the way!

I do believe there is.

Not sure I totally agree. Is that how movie or literary critics work? I am not sure. They don't use predefined "criteria", do they?, But they seem to be able to talk about how the artifact - the movie or the novel or poem -affects them. How its elements in the artifact work together (or not). If brewers or beer drinkers cannot articulate how a particular beer "works" - what its elements are and how they provide for the experience that the beer drinker has then I am not sure that the problem is with the nature of the world itself (your point) but the ability of the one doing the reporting...Now I think the problem with those doing the reporting is that the BJCP presents itself as the very heart and soul of the nature of any beer but those guidelines strike me (a contrarian) much like the way that genre in movies or literature or music are defined. Defining a movie as a horror or a thriller and then looking at particular examples of horror movies or thrillers in light of what makes the movie under review a thriller or a horror movie tells me not a thing about why I am enjoying the movie or being bored out my gourd or why I might enjoy the movie or why I can expect to doze off..

I would argue that it's not helpful to anyone setting up objective measures to "rate" beer. Based off our physiology we may perceive, taste, experience things differently. Mandating that a beer must have certain qualities in order to be deemed as "good", will stifle the creative aspects of brewing and the craft beer movement, which we are a part of. Reinheitsgebot anyone?

 

[jlinz]

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.

Not sure I totally agree. Is that how movie or literary critics work? I am not sure. They don't use predefined "criteria", do they?, But they seem to be able to talk about how the artifact - the movie or the novel or poem -affects them. How its elements in the artifact work together (or not). If brewers or beer drinkers cannot articulate how a particular beer "works" - what its elements are and how they provide for the experience that the beer drinker has then I am not sure that the problem is with the nature of the world itself (your point) but the ability of the one doing the reporting...Now I think the problem with those doing the reporting is that the BJCP presents itself as the very heart and soul of the nature of any beer but those guidelines strike me (a contrarian) much like the way that genre in movies or literature or music are defined. Defining a movie as a horror or a thriller and then looking at particular examples of horror movies or thrillers in light of what makes the movie under review a thriller or a horror movie tells me not a thing about why I am enjoying the movie or being bored out my gourd or why I might enjoy the movie or why I can expect to doze off..[/QUOTE]

I actually agree with some of what you are saying here. It is true the problem is with us doing the reporting, not the world beyond us, because we do not know what good beer is on a conceptual level. Exhibit A is this thread. Yet, it is great that we do try to define it. It is part of the experience of what we call good.

Another point...note the distrust many have of thise who claim to be able to define good beer. There is something disingenous about it, isn't there? We do intuitively understand that they are making themselves authorities about something the human mind cannot truly define.

 

[jlinz]

Not sure I totally agree. Is that how movie or literary critics work? I am not sure. They don't use predefined "criteria", do they?, But they seem to be able to talk about how the artifact - the movie or the novel or poem -affects them. How its elements in the artifact work together (or not). If brewers or beer drinkers cannot articulate how a particular beer "works" - what its elements are and how they provide for the experience that the beer drinker has then I am not sure that the problem is with the nature of the world itself (your point) but the ability of the one doing the reporting...Now I think the problem with those doing the reporting is that the BJCP presents itself as the very heart and soul of the nature of any beer but those guidelines strike me (a contrarian) much like the way that genre in movies or literature or music are defined. Defining a movie as a horror or a thriller and then looking at particular examples of horror movies or thrillers in light of what makes the movie under review a thriller or a horror movie tells me not a thing about why I am enjoying the movie or being bored out my gourd or why I might enjoy the movie or why I can expect to doze off..

I actually agree with some of what you are saying here. It is true the problem is with us doing the reporting, not the world beyond us, because we do not know what good beer is on a conceptual level. Exhibit A is this thread. Yet, it is great that we do try to define it. It is part of the experience of what we call good.

Another point...note the distrust many have of those who claim to be able to define good beer. There is something disingenous about it, isn't there? We do intuitively understand that they are making themselves authorities about something the human mind cannot truly define.[/QUOTE]

 

[joshesmusica]

I would argue that it's not helpful to anyone setting up objective measures to "rate" beer. Based off our physiology we may perceive, taste, experience things differently. Mandating that a beer must have certain qualities in order to be deemed as "good", will stifle the creative aspects of brewing and the craft beer movement, which we are a part of. Reinheitsgebot anyone?

I agree with this. Someone mentioned even BJCP competitions being quite subjective in nature because the judges will get kind of a composite score. I don't believe it's because of their bias of style at all. It's because there are some flavors in beer that we are just not wired to be able to taste.

I had a beer early on that really had that "bubble gum" type of ester flavor in it. My wife, my brew partner, our friends all could not taste it. It was most definitely present for me. Then we tried Tank 7. Boom. Bubble gum, banana, clove bomb for me. My wife absolutely loves it. I couldn't possibly drink an entire glass of it unless somebody dared me to.

So it's not just about style preference, necessarily. It's about scientific preference. How can we then begin to call something bad just because we are sensitive to that particular compound?

 

[joshesmusica]

But I have to ask, Cape, is that the whole point of the thread? I understand you've asked many questions along the way, and it does kinda seem like you want to pinpoint a way to call something good in a more objective manner.

But, I also see your point about how these ratings and reviews are really doing injustices to the craft beer world. Not everyone likes DIPAs or RISes, yet RateBeer pretty much lends only those styles in their top 50. Same with Beer Advocate and untappd.

What happens if you don't like those, yet you're being told be the beer ratings community that those are the top?

 

[bluemoose]

I have a friend that brings top beers to the house from those lists, and tells me they are great beers. I find many are not my cup of tea. I think he only likes them because he is supposed to, they are after all the top beers in the country. I prefer to try flights wherever I go and make that determination myself. Course, I'm not hip because I don't blog about it.
Lemmings on the precipice of the craft beer cliff.

 

[Cape Brewing]

I think there two main points...
1) what does it all currently mean and
2) is there a way we can all, collectively, do a better job of it.

I think of we can do a better job of it, it would help craft beer overall... both home and commercial.

In one way, I think is a fair amount of value in the way things are now. I think "ratings" currently mean nothing more than a bunch of people voted for it. But, I guess there is value is just knowing that.

On the flip side, in a perfect world, it would be great if style bias could be eliminated to a great extent and folks could appreciate beers on the beers merit opposed to their personal preference because... Given how much of the general market still doesn't drink craft beer (about 85%), I think "ratings" could be amazing guide posts for those folks.

If you're a BMC drinker now, just happened to try a Hill Farmstead IPA.., chances are you're not going to like it because that's going to be so incredibly different from what you're used to. You could then say, "well shti... That's supposed to be the best craft beer in the world... So... Craft beer sucks" And go right back to BMC.

If we had a better way of showing... "No, it's not just Hill Farmstead IPA... It's XYZ Brewing's Dunkel, it's Something Brewing's Baltic Porter, it's Brewery ABC's Pils"... That lays out craft beer as a whole dramatically better. It also provides, I think, much more incentive for breweries to push boundaries in areas other than IPAs and the occasional stout and saison.

I think it more than just style bias though... As i have been mentioning, i think it would be dramatically better if there was some sort of standard method to ratings and I DON'T mean guidelines. I still like "brewer's intent".

I don't think it would be that hard for the public, especially current beer nerds, to understand what the brewer was trying to do and judge it accordingly.

Maybe make two "ratings".... 1) did the brewer pull off what they were trying yo do and 2) did I personally like it.

 

[brewfun]

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)

I know we're not arguing, but that is completely illogical. The risk was serving something he didn't like. Good for you on getting him to try it (getting people to try new beer is one of the best parts of brewing), but he was predisposed to not like it. Your OP was about giving the beer context to it's presentation. I'm not a fan of liver, but for those that like it, they can tell the nuance to how well its cooked. My rejection of it isn't due to quality but my gag reflex.

My point was made with the understanding that when someone asks for a beer, that it is of a style they already like. Much like your OP, where the brewer plainly stated it was hoppy and the reviewer failed to take that into consideration. OTOH, if the beer was made as a classic example and the reviewer didn't like it for the same reasons (too hoppy), then the brewer failed.

 

[brewfun]

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.

That is an exact illustration of what "good" isn't.

If I'm bowling in lane 7, throw and get a strike in lane 8, that isn't "good."

 

[Cape Brewing]

I know we're not arguing, but that is completely illogical. The risk was serving something he didn't like. Good for you on getting him to try it (getting people to try new beer is one of the best parts of brewing), but he was predisposed to not like it. Your OP was about giving the beer context to it's presentation. I'm not a fan of liver, but for those that like it, they can tell the nuance to how well its cooked. My rejection of it isn't due to quality but my gag reflex.



My point was made with the understanding that when someone asks for a beer, that it is of a style they already like. Much like your OP, where the brewer plainly stated it was hoppy and the reviewer failed to take that into consideration. OTOH, if the beer was made as a classic example and the reviewer didn't like it for the same reasons (too hoppy), then the brewer failed.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing... I think we're just getting tripped up in the wording.

 

[BGBC]

That is an exact illustration of what "good" isn't.

If I'm bowling in lane 7, throw and get a strike in lane 8, that isn't "good."

Unless you then sidestep over to lane 8 and no one else notices

 

[m00ps]

That is an exact illustration of what "good" isn't.

If I'm bowling in lane 7, throw and get a strike in lane 8, that isn't "good."

You joking? I would be twice as happy to manage to get a strike in the lane next to me. Way to go me

 

[brewfun]

I'm not sure we're disagreeing... I think we're just getting tripped up in the wording.

I think we agree at the core of it. I hope I'm not splitting hairs, from your perspective. I took issue with your context, not your example. Getting someone to try new beer styles is great. Getting someone to try a style they don't like is even better, but in that context it's a situational failure not a brewer failure when they reject it.

Two decades ago, I had a customer come in and order a Pilsner that had American Hops in it. It was otherwise brewed as a German Pilsner, but the customer said, "That's not anything I recognize as a Pilsner" and didn't want to finish his glass. THAT's a brewer failure and a beer that wouldn't be considered "good" in my opinion, even though I made that beer.

I'm just drawing a line that says "good" is determined by the brewer, even though it's judged by the drinker. I consider everything I've done to make "good" beer successful when people who like that style say, "I'll have another."

 

[SeraW]

I like the comparison to art in the OP. On a similar note, I'm reminded of a famously controversial article by 20th Century composer Milton Babbitt, "It Doesn't Matter If You Listen." That sounds like the Roasted Squash IPA example - the brewer (composer) executed exactly what was wanted, and that is the art that was displayed. You can like it, or consume (heh) another art that is more to your taste.

I used to hate Stravinsky. He confused the hells outta me. So did Saisons. Now that I've studied and listened more, I can get into Rite of Spring and a few other major works, and I like DuPont as well. Not just because they're well received examples of the styles (Primitivism/Modernism and Saisons) but because they also achieved what their composers set out to do. And yeah, I do see brewing as a form of composition. Composers are at the mercy of their executing musicians, just as brewers are at the mercy of their ingredients. But fortunately with good quality checks in place for both, the chances of failure should be minimal.

 

[kombat]

How did this make it to 11 pages?

What's "good" music? Is Bach better than Nicki Minaj? Who's sold more records? Who's won more Grammy's? Who gets more airplay on the radio? Who would most people rather listen to? Does that make her "better?"

What's "good" food? Who sells more burgers, McDonald's or Five Guys? Which is the bigger company? Which has more restaurants? Which would a 5-year old rather have: a loaded Five Guys burger or a box of Chicken McNuggets?

What's a "good" movie? The Matrix won more Oscars than Brokeback Mountain, does that mean it was a better movie? The Sound of Music is the highest-grossing film of all time (adjusted for inflation), but would you rather see it or Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Which has better ratings? (Answer: Star Wars; 92% vs. 85% on Rotten Tomatoes).

It's all so pointless without an agreed-upon set of judging criteria. With beer, that's the BJCP Style Guidelines. If we can't agree on that, then we're all just banging our heads against the wall. We'll never get anywhere, because everything else is totally subjective.

 

[Cape Brewing]

I think we agree at the core of it. I hope I'm not splitting hairs, from your perspective. I took issue with your context, not your example. Getting someone to try new beer styles is great. Getting someone to try a style they don't like is even better, but in that context it's a situational failure not a brewer failure when they reject it.

totally agree. That's why I said that wouldn't be Cantillon's failure

Two decades ago, I had a customer come in and order a Pilsner that had American Hops in it. It was otherwise brewed as a German Pilsner, but the customer said, "That's not anything I recognize as a Pilsner" and didn't want to finish his glass. THAT's a brewer failure and a beer that wouldn't be considered "good" in my opinion, even though I made that beer.

Agreed to a large extent... the brewer needs to make it clear what their intention is and set the consumer's expectation. IF the beer is simply presented as a Pils and it was brewed with a hop bill that would make it something other than what it was presented as... then yeah, that's the brewer's fault. But in that example... and now it gets kinda corny.... but maybe that's the point... if the brewer didn't set expectations then the beer is "bad" but if the brewer said, "this is a traditional Pils with american hops and it should have this nuance to it"... then that's a different story.

I'm just drawing a line that says "good" is determined by the brewer, even though it's judged by the drinker. I consider everything I've done to make "good" beer successful when people who like that style say, "I'll have another."

I don' think I ever suggested that and if I did... it wasn't intentional.