Why brew to "style"?

[Nightshade]

Figured this may make for interesting convo.

Was reading Farmhouse Ales by Markowski and he pointed out something that had crossed my mind many times, are we hung up on style?

When the comment is made he points out that although a beer may be good or even great, is it any less a great beer if it falls outside of style? Does it taint your opinion of it? What if you were blindfolded and told nothing about it as far as style or intention would it still be a great beer once you did find out the details?

Random thoughts I suppose and reading it in print kind of validated it a bit.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

I'm all about coloring outside the lines. but I do, on occasion, like to color the picture as the guide lines intend. but I do think a great number do get far to hung on style guide lines and brewing classic styles. I really can't talk trash on them since it's been many years, but Ale Riders were sticklers on classic style. I could've been a decent asset to their club, but their "classic" arrogance put me off and in turn, I put people off of them.

was I right? nope. will I apologize? nope.

get your paint by number dirty with different colors. don't crap on people that do. it's their painting.

 

[Yooper]

I'm not all about style guidelines, but sometimes beers that fall outside the guidelines are weird. Yet, some are great!

As an example, I made a beer that I call Fat Sam. But I had to substitute some of the grains and some of the hops. It ended up tasting very German, and it was definitely a German ale. But it was sort of odd. Many people liked it, and drank it, but it just tasted "not quite right" to me.

I think it was because I used German malt and hops but an ale yeast and my taste buds just couldn't "get it" that it wasn't supposed to be a German lager.

Some beers that fall outside of the guidelines are great. But this one was not. Some people did love it, but to me it just tasted too "weird" for me to love.

 

[CDGoin]

The only "Style" that matter to me is IPA... I avoid it (Am I the only one that tastes turpentine / Gin / Juniper in that beer style..? BTW WHAT is the TERM for that flavor.. drives me nuts).

That said IPAs come in many other styles and colors.. and being a noob at this, I am not sure what makes an IPA, an IPA other than its horrendously harsh evergreen finish.

That said, Good Beer is good beer.. no matter the style.

 

[Dynachrome]

I color outside the lines too. I've made some fairly off-the-wall stuff.

I've entered two competitions. There's the rub.

If you enter a competition, you have to pick a category to enter your beer into. Luckily, there is usually a "People's Choice" division. That is generally all-holds barred.

 

[Airborneguy]

I really don't brew to style much, but for me that doesn't mean brewing beers with all sorts of whacky ingredients. That's just not my thing. I make a porter that doesn't really fit any of the accepted porter categories, but is still definitely a porter and loved by all. That's good enough for me.

 

[afr0byte]

The only "Style" that matter to me is IPA... I avoid it (Am I the only one that tastes turpentine / Gin / Juniper in that beer style..? BTW WHAT is the TERM for that flavor.. drives me nuts).

That said IPAs come in many other styles and colors.. and being a noob at this, I am not sure what makes an IPA and IPA other than its horrendously harsh evergreen finish.

That said, Good Beer is good beer.. no matter the style.

Many hops have a flavor described as piney, so it makes sense that you'd describe it as turpentine. Actually I just looked up turpentine. Some of the big components of turpentine are terpenes, which are also present in hops (myrcene, for example). This page by Glen Tinseth mentions terpenes: http://realbeer.com/hops/aroma.html

 

[Schemy]

I've only been brewing for a little over 2 years, but the thing that I've learned and that has stuck with me the most is that Style Guidelines are just that..........guidelines. I've learned to not worry about what it says my beer should taste like, rather work with what it actually tastes like. I would say I brew to taste, but don't necessarily formulate my recipes by taste. I use style guidelines as a basis for recipe formulation, and then let my taste run with it and create a beer I want to drink. Will this translate to medals and accolades, probably not......but I know I can brew some great beer.

 

[Dr. Francois]

Analogy from swimming:

Why not do the flutter kick (instead of dolphin kick) while doing butterfly?

Two reasons:

1) Over many years, experts have fine-tuned the mechanics of the butterfly to maximize the effectiveness of the dolphin kick...it developed along with the stroke itself.

2) If you do flutter kick in a swim meet, you'll be immediately disqualified.

Of course, there's no downside to flutter kick with butterfly while training...you may even go faster than you would with dolphin.

Same with beer. Styles allow us to receive inherited wisdom of what works from generations before. Some recipes and techniques don't exist because they've been tried and failed.
And breaking the rules causes trouble in competition.

Still, if I'm on my own, I like to do things the way I want to do them. I haven't entered a competitive swim meet in over 15 years. I also don't plan to participate in BJCP sanctioned competitions.

 

[phenry]

My recipes usually don't follow traditional ingredient choices for what "style" I'm brewing. If I'm brewing a Belgian Dubbel and only have Briess C60*L instead of Caramunich, I don't exactly go out of my way to get the "authentic" grain choice. Heck, my best scoring beer in competition was a Saison that used American 2-row instead of pilsner for base malt, a healthy amount of flaked corn, and Simcoe and Cascade for flavor and aroma hops. Somehow a Saison that had a grainbill more reminiscent of an American adjunct lager than anything else and a hopping schedule that would be at home in an APA was deemed a good example of the style. I just thought it tasted good.

 

[CDGoin]

Many hops have a flavor described as piney, so it makes sense that you'd describe it as turpentine. Actually I just looked up turpentine. Some of the big components of turpentine are terpenes, which are also present in hops (myrcene, for example). This page by Glen Tinseth mentions terpenes: http://realbeer.com/hops/aroma.html

Piney works..

There has to be a "real" name for the flavor..

But I have never cared for the smell of turpentine (Distilled pine tree sap), or liked Gin (Made with Juniper Berries an Evergreen), or Hoppy beers (Come to think of it Hopps look like pine cones), so I have never gotten the love of IPAs by my other beer drinking friends. To me it tastes like chewing on pine needles.

 

[SwivelHips]

I'm more of a brew-to-taste guy, too, and my favourite homebrew is probably a cross between American Amber Ale and Northern German Alt. But it's also fun to try to hit a style, whether for competition or just because.

That is generally all-holds barred.

I think the idiom you meant to use there is "no holds barred", as in a wrestling match where no holds are deemed illegal, or "barred" from competition and therefore anything goes.

 

[Braufessor]

Suppose it depends. Obviously, if you are entering competitions there is a pretty good reason to brew to style.

If you are brewing for yourself and friends, and you can brew great tasting beer that falls outside of guidelines - who cares? Not me.

That being said, I think it is like almost anything else. People that actually learn the rules of how something is done to start with, end up also being a lot better at breaking them successfully later on. In my experience, people that CAN'T brew to style usually don't brew much that is very good. Those that CAN brew to style can also brew up some great crazy beers. I am a big believer of learning how to do something correctly before you start messing with it.

Like many brewers, when I first started, I wanted to add all kinds of stuff, change recipes - for no reason other than to change them or something sounded cool. I became a much better brewer the day I started brewing quality recipes, as written, and then rebrewing them over and over and beginning to change them to my liking or to test different aspects.

Brewing to style helps the learning process. Once you have process and product down - that is when I think it makes more sense to experiment. If you just start out with crazy recipes, you are not experimenting, you are guessing.

 

[mammothkraken]

I generally brew to style the first time I try a new style of beer and then go off the beaten path on subsequent brews. I like to design a beer to be to style and then subsequently adapt it to my tastes.
For example I made a German pilsner that was german pilsner malt and all noble hops. While it tastes like a traditional German pilsner I couldn't help but think damn this would be good with some rye in it and a heavy dryhop. Next time I brew it I will try these additions which may inspire me to try other things with the recipe but I won't be overly concerned with keeping it traditional after all I brew beer to my tastes not the bjcps.

 

[Ostomo517]

Suppose it depends. Obviously, if you are entering competitions there is a pretty good reason to brew to style.

If you are brewing for yourself and friends, and you can brew great tasting beer that falls outside of guidelines - who cares? Not me.

That being said, I think it is like almost anything else. People that actually learn the rules of how something is done to start with, end up also being a lot better at breaking them successfully later on. In my experience, people that CAN'T brew to style usually don't brew much that is very good. Those that CAN brew to style can also brew up some great crazy beers. I am a big believer of learning how to do something correctly before you start messing with it.

Like many brewers, when I first started, I wanted to add all kinds of stuff, change recipes - for no reason other than to change them or something sounded cool. I became a much better brewer the day I started brewing quality recipes, as written, and then rebrewing them over and over and beginning to change them to my liking or to test different aspects.

Brewing to style helps the learning process. Once you have process and product down - that is when I think it makes more sense to experiment. If you just start out with crazy recipes, you are not experimenting, you are guessing.

This is why I plan on brewing a lot of SMaSH beers and proven recipes this year so I can correctly learn styles and have a educated aspect when I do want to break those rules and have a clear idea of what to expect in the final brew.

 

[Wynne-R]

My house beer doesn’t fit a category. I used to say I didn’t care what anybody else thought about my beer, I liked it just fine. But that’s not completely true.

Have you ever given away a beer without expecting feedback? Problem is, everybody loves free beer. Everybody’s going to tell you it’s good, whether it is or not.

The most compelling reason to brew to style is to enter a competition. Trained judges will give you an objective evaluation of your beer. They don’t know who you are, you’re a number. Your beer is being judged against very similar beers. You need guidelines for a competition.

 

[Dan]

I read the title and then jumped to the end. My bad.

Style is conforming to a standard. That is great in many ways. As a homebrewer, not for me. I don't have the time, patience or want, to brew a beer that conforms to BJCP standards each and every time.

I'm just a homebrewer and don't understand all the regulations. My beer taste awesome. It's all that really that matters to me when I make beer. Professional standards?

Bud, miller, coors make perfect beer everytime, everytime they brew and produce. Not what I want. I also don't want a standard that tells me what I should like.

Sidenote, maybe been reading to many of BobbiLynn's threads..

 

[highgravitybacon]

Beer itself is a style. If you ferment cabbage, barley, and milk it's just not beer. Why limit it artificially to fermented grains?

You are always brewing to style. The BJCP has several "none of the above" categories.

I would say that 94% of people who "don't brew to style" arent being creative. They're making oddball crap. This includes me.

People have been making beer for 10,000 years. Some things just work and some don't. 10,000 years is plenty of time to experiment.

The "style" is only important when entering competitions. And for people who have mastered the dozens of styles, you always have the "speciality beer" category for the oaked pork gravy imperial cream ale.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Suppose it depends. Obviously, if you are entering competitions there is a pretty good reason to brew to style.

If you are brewing for yourself and friends, and you can brew great tasting beer that falls outside of guidelines - who cares? Not me.

That being said, I think it is like almost anything else. People that actually learn the rules of how something is done to start with, end up also being a lot better at breaking them successfully later on. In my experience, people that CAN'T brew to style usually don't brew much that is very good. Those that CAN brew to style can also brew up some great crazy beers. I am a big believer of learning how to do something correctly before you start messing with it.

Like many brewers, when I first started, I wanted to add all kinds of stuff, change recipes - for no reason other than to change them or something sounded cool. I became a much better brewer the day I started brewing quality recipes, as written, and then rebrewing them over and over and beginning to change them to my liking or to test different aspects.

Brewing to style helps the learning process. Once you have process and product down - that is when I think it makes more sense to experiment. If you just start out with crazy recipes, you are not experimenting, you are guessing.

This.

Brewing to style A) means better competition results, and B) will help you become a better brewer. Even if you don't care about competitions, it still helps you fine tune your process and ingredient knowledge.

I can respect the Belgian way of doing things where there's little to no concept of style (outside of abiding by rigorous traditions with Lambic espoused by some brewers - particularly in the case of Cantillon). But at the same time, attempting to start from scratch to attain a narrowly defined end result really helps you brew better in the end.

But ultimately, at the end of the day, brew what you like.

 

[Dan]

Bah brewing to a style. All brew styles have been made? Our world is so well kept everything has already been done, proved and stamped? Smurf that!

Do as you will brewer. If you don't brew your own then we will be kept closed in a circle. No individualism.

 

[zeg]

I generally follow style guidelines. This isn't because there's anything magical about the BJCP numbers, but because they're a fair guide to the sorts of combinations that centuries of experimentation has found to produce beers pleasant enough to become standards.

For example, I'm lagering a doppelbock right now. While part of the reason I brewed this is to follow the historical tradition of having a rich malty lager to drink around Lent, I followed the BJCP guidelines (roughly, at least) when putting together the recipe because otherwise I would have no idea what sort of hopping schedule would provide enough bitterness to squash the cloying sweetness without getting in the way of the malt.

If you're not competing, there's really no reason to worry about style guidelines. There certainly are plenty of fantastic recipes that don't fall into any style, even excluding unusual ingredients. But it's the converse that can be helpful: if you brew within the style guidelines, you're very unlikely to come up with something profoundly out of balance and unpleasant to drink.

 

[iambeer]

I'm all about style. I want beer to taste a certain way, based on a perfect archetype.

The one thing I know about a 'style' is that it will be good if done well. There is also a possibility it is good and not exactly fitting the style. But for all the bad beer out there, 'style' is a beacon of hope and of sanity. In other words, there is no style I do not like, but there is plenty of beer produced I do not like at all. I have no problems returning beers---from the tap, a case with one beer missing... I return them and the vendor always takes it back.

But anyway styles can sometimes be very broad, so it's not like... super restrictive. I do avoid belgian IPA, belgian APA, et al ... other yeast blends that sounds like just a marketing gimmick. Oh well.. Meanwhile, I have tons of room to experiment fairly within the bounds of the style... but personally I'm still just trying to get it right now, without experimenting.

 

[cclloyd]

I generally brew beer that I want to drink. Beer that tastes good. Most of them are not going to be classic examples of a specific style but they will be fantastic beers. that being said, trying to brew a specific style and succeeding is a great feeling as well. When you brew a foreign extra stout and you hand a glass to a BJCP master judge and his response is "that's a really nice foreign stout" it kinda makes your day.
Brewing to style to enter in competitions can be a good measuring stick for yourself as well. Feedback from blind panel judges cannot hurt and will usually provide insight as to what you can do to improve your beer.

 

[TNGabe]

Piney works..

There has to be a "real" name for the flavor..

But I have never cared for the smell of turpentine (Distilled pine tree sap), or liked Gin (Made with Juniper Berries an Evergreen), or Hoppy beers (Come to think of it Hopps look like pine cones), so I have never gotten the love of IPAs by my other beer drinking friends. To me it tastes like chewing on pine needles.

Yeah, it's 'hoppy'. I think you may dislike what was once called 'The American taint.' Ha. Try something that's got UK or nobles hops like fuggles, EKG, styrian, saaz, etc. Probably more to your liking. Or you just dont like hops, which would be tragic.

 

[Big_Cat]

I personally never brew to hit the styles head on
. If i wanted to taste a specific style i just buy it. I like creating and seeing how my changes improves the product (at least in my eyes)

 

[CDGoin]

Yeah, it's 'hoppy'. I think you may dislike what was once called 'The American taint.' Ha. Try something that's got UK or nobles hops like fuggles, EKG, styrian, saaz, etc. Probably more to your liking. Or you just dont like hops, which would be tragic.

I promise I will give it another try.. but since they don't list the hops on the beer package, what would be a way of figuring out if its an IPA that uses milder hops.? That said, never had an IPA I liked, a few I could stand, but none that I liked. Maybe just keep getting the wrong ones, or ones that have been improperly stored, etc..

That said, I am definitely more a malt guy.. the darker and smoother the beer the better. An exception, is I am starting to get into the Belgian whites and other wheat beers.

I was thinking of making two of the same recipe kits.. (Say milk stout) and then do one with and one without hops.. so I can definitively "Taste the hops". That way I can start to adjust what I like and don't like. Maybe do the recipe a few other times and replace the hops in the kit with other hops. That way I can have an educated knowledge of what I do and truly don't like.

I know the one thing I don't like is ANY "piney" aftertaste in my beer. IF that means I don't care for hops, then so be it. If it means I don't like certain hops, brewed in certain ways, I am sure I will find that out as I experiment and learn.

 

[Ostomo517]

I promise I will give it another try.. but since they don't list the hops on the beer package, what would be a way of figuring out if its an IPA that uses milder hops.? That said, never had an IPA I liked, a few I could stand, but none that I liked. Maybe just keep getting the wrong ones, or ones that have been improperly stored, etc..

That said, I am definitely more a malt guy.. the darker and smoother the beer the better. An exception, is I am starting to get into the Belgian whites and other wheat beers.

I was thinking of making two of the same recipe kits.. (Say milk stout) and then do one with and one without hops.. so I can definitively "Taste the hops". That way I can start to adjust what I like and don't like. Maybe do the recipe a few other times and replace the hops in the kit with other hops. That way I can have an educated knowledge of what I do and truly don't like.

I know the one thing I don't like is ANY "piney" aftertaste in my beer. IF that means I don't care for hops, then so be it. If it means I don't like certain hops, brewed in certain ways, I am sure I will find that out as I experiment and learn.

Brew some SMaSH beers in one or two gallon batches, that way you can definately know what hops it is you dont care for

 

[david_42]

Some people see brewing to style as a test of their skills. I know one person that has won first places in every style in the guide. He is now working on achieving this for every sub-style as well. As I've never been interested in competitions, his goal isn't something I understand.

I tend to brew near-style in part because I don't drink much and having five gallons of beer that's 'off' is a waste of my time and materials. When Guzzleboy was alive, we experimented a great deal. He would drink just about anything and his capacity was 4-5 times mine. I also look back at my years-long effort to perfect a porter recipe, only to throw it out when I found a clone of Rogue Mocha Porter.

 

[bizarrojosh]

I'm all about style. I want beer to taste a certain way, based on a perfect archetype.

The one thing I know about a 'style' is that it will be good if done well. There is also a possibility it is good and not exactly fitting the style. But for all the bad beer out there, 'style' is a beacon of hope and of sanity. In other words, there is no style I do not like, but there is plenty of beer produced I do not like at all. I have no problems returning beers---from the tap, a case with one beer missing... I return them and the vendor always takes it back.

I'm pretty sure these styles are not perfect archetypes. Archetypal styles are just too platonic for me to stomach.

However I think brewing to style, as others have said, teaches us how to become better brewers. NOT because the beer produced is a perfect style and will be good if done well, but rather because the techniques used in those styles or the ingredients used will teach us how to construct certain flavors or qualities.

The swimming example was good, but to me it's more like poetry or music. First the poet has to learn poetic structures to understand why or how to construct "styles" of poetry (sonnets, haiku, epic, free verse, etc). However after the artist learns these structures then through slight variation or complete disregard of those structures the artist can potentially craft something amazing. A beer example is the Cascadian Dark Ale (black IPA). It was a slight variation made from an IPA. The brewers had intimate knowledge of their IPA ingredients and only made a minor substitution, yet they created a new style because it worked and they knew why it worked and, maybe more importantly, other brewers could see the craftsmanship that it took to make that slight variation that caused an new amazing style to be produced. :rockin:

I would never call a style a perfect thing, but it does serve as a standard or guideline for us brewers to have some kind of knowledge about how certain ingredients will make certain flavors or qualities that we can then use to craft something original.

 

[jerrodm]

Agree with many other posters here on several points.

#1 Styles do have value, if only to provide a common language of discourse to talk about the beers we make. If all styles were abolished and everyone just made "beer", we'd lack a vocabulary to differentiate between the different kinds. You can talk about a beer that is maltier and darker, but is it a stout, a porter or a barleywine, or a dunkelweizen? Yes, there are other characteristics that differentiate each of those styles, but do you really want to post a grain bill, mash, hop and fermentation schedule every time you want to discuss a beer?

#2 I suspect most other brewers on this site may not agree, but I didn't get into brewing in order to "push the boundaries" and discover that new amazing beer--I did it because I enjoy the act and it connects me with the beer I drink in a fun way. But I'm not the one ordering the Voodoo doughnut maple bacon ale at a restaurant, and I have zero desire to make one at home. I like traditional-ish beers, and I don't feel it necessary to discover the new flavor combo that will amaze people. I get the greatest enjoyment out of making a beer that tastes the way I want it to taste, and that usually falls within one style or another.

However, that being said, I'm not slavish about keeping within style on any beer, and I doubt many people are either. If my IBUs are a little high, my FG is a little low, or if I want to use Fuggles in my American IPA, I do so without a second thought. At the end of the day, do what tastes right. If you're competing, respect the categories and look for ways to excel within them. But for your own drinking, brew whatever makes you happy. Just please don't ask me to drink that oaked pork gravy imperial cream ale.

Cheers!

 

[iambeer]

I'm pretty sure these styles are not perfect archetypes. Archetypal styles are just too platonic for me to stomach.

That is not at all what I meant, sorry.

I meant that without styles, beer would make no sense. Wines have style based on various aspects, and I could not maneuver through them without understanding the styles. If beers were purely described as colors, scent, and tastes, it would be lengthy, or vague.. basically unclear communication about what beer we are drinking/brewing etc.

I meant that the perfect example of each style helps us maneuver through talking about beer.

Without styles, you wouldn't have experimental beer. There would be no mold to break. It would all be up in the air, we'd all be blind.

I guess that styles here are regarded as restrictive rules set by an organization that judges beer more than as I see them: basic characteristics that embody popular traditional styles (and a few categories for a whole lot of beers that fall outside traditional styles).

Some styles are broad in interpretation. Some are very specific. For me, a style is a recipe that has gained popularity to the point of being more than a single beer recipe but something greater that is recognizable and is tied to a tradition or culture.

I also agree that one must play by the rules and master them before she can break them.

 

[zeg]

I promise I will give it another try.. but since they don't list the hops on the beer package, what would be a way of figuring out if its an IPA that uses milder hops.? That said, never had an IPA I liked, a few I could stand, but none that I liked. Maybe just keep getting the wrong ones, or ones that have been improperly stored, etc..

You're not alone. It seems to be rather rare in the homebrew world, but I really don't go for IPAs either. Like you, I've had a few I could stand, and recently came across a DIPA that I would nearly say I liked... but I'm just not that into strong hoppiness. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I do like some of the hop flavors, though generally not the grapefruity american styles in general, but I just don't drink beer for that flavor.

 

[halffullpgh]

I have only been brewing on my own for about two years and so I find a lot of value in understanding how to brew to style, but I have come up with some pretty wonderful things on my own too. I think it is great to experiment but quality shouldn't be lost to a desire to do something outside of the lines.

 

[Nightshade]

Some interesting responses and good reading

I design within style and brew as close to style as I can, as said it is to learn a consistency and way of doing things so that I can later go against those very same "rules" I just learned.

I have always had authority issues, so if you lay out rules I am more likely to find a loophole or a reason to break them...needless to say life has been exciting. I see beer styles and guidelines to be the same so my plan is to learn them as a motion so I can break them as practice.

 

[Piratwolf]

This discussion reminds me of a quote from JZ: "People say,'I don't brew to style. I make a German lager, but it's black!'. I'm like, yeah, that's a schwartzbier."

 

[CDGoin]

You're not alone. It seems to be rather rare in the homebrew world, but I really don't go for IPAs either. Like you, I've had a few I could stand, and recently came across a DIPA that I would nearly say I liked... but I'm just not that into strong hoppiness. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I do like some of the hop flavors, though generally not the grapefruity american styles in general, but I just don't drink beer for that flavor.

Often I am told by those of a younger palate that they drink IPAs because they are of a higher ABV.. and that is the primary reason.

I then tell them if that's why they are drinking beer, they need to stop or at least switch to some of the better 10%+ ABV ales

I still have headaches over this one..

Skull Splitter - Orkney Brewery (Scotland)

But dang its a good beer..

 

[Billy-Klubb]

another way I tend to look at it is, "Some people never go insane. What truly boring lives they must lead." isn't it really amazing how so many of us see things in completely different light, yet we all come together over a simple thing like beer? even the differences we see in brewing or just beer in general, but here we are despite it all.

 

[emmdubb23]

I promise I will give it another try.. but since they don't list the hops on the beer package, what would be a way of figuring out if its an IPA that uses milder hops.? That said, never had an IPA I liked, a few I could stand, but none that I liked. Maybe just keep getting the wrong ones, or ones that have been improperly stored, etc..

That said, I am definitely more a malt guy.. the darker and smoother the beer the better. An exception, is I am starting to get into the Belgian whites and other wheat beers.

I was thinking of making two of the same recipe kits.. (Say milk stout) and then do one with and one without hops.. so I can definitively "Taste the hops". That way I can start to adjust what I like and don't like. Maybe do the recipe a few other times and replace the hops in the kit with other hops. That way I can have an educated knowledge of what I do and truly don't like.

I know the one thing I don't like is ANY "piney" aftertaste in my beer. IF that means I don't care for hops, then so be it. If it means I don't like certain hops, brewed in certain ways, I am sure I will find that out as I experiment and learn.

I too disliked IPAS when I first ventured into brewing, until I brewed one of my own... Now I love them, and I realized there are some TERRIBLE IPAs out there, I agree with the piney thing too much of that is just bad... However, when I go to a brewery or I see a new craft brew on the shelf, I drink the IPA first...

 

[zeg]

Often I am told by those of a younger palate that they drink IPAs because they are of a higher ABV.. and that is the primary reason.

I then tell them if that's why they are drinking beer, they need to stop or at least switch to some of the better 10%+ ABV ales

Yeah, that's silly. In addition to the ales you mention, it's hard to do much better than a Doppelbock if you want to knock yourself out without having to choke down the hops.

But for my purposes, if I could get a monstrous malt-bomb flavor with half the alcohol, i'd be on it in a heartbeat. That'd mean twice as many before things got silly.

This discussion reminds me of a quote from JZ: "People say,'I don't brew to style. I make a German lager, but it's black!'. I'm like, yeah, that's a schwartzbier."

That sort of happened to me with my first stout. For some reason that I've lost to history, I decided to make it with Centennial hops and "cleverly" called it an American stout. I wound up entering it in a competition and, lo and behold, there was exactly that on the category list! (In my estimation, it was an excellent example of the style, but it unfortunately had some stability issues and went south before it was judged...)

 

[Phunhog]

I think it all depends on what you want out of brewing. I want to be a technically sound brewer first ( a guy who can brew ANYTHING and brew it well) and a creative brewer second. It's like playing jazz music. You can improv and add your own signature on a tune BUT you first have to have the chops and music background. Otherwise,more than likely, it is just going to be a train wreck.