Beer style categories that are too broad?

I'd argue the opposite: that syles are getting way too specific. In the past they were a much vaguer concept. Bitter is a good example - it had and has a huge amount of variation between breweries and across Britain.

As far as I'm concerned there are only really four British styles: Pale Ale, Mild Ale, Porter and Strong Ale. Everything else is just a variation on those four basic themes.

 

Semantics. I think that is what it boils down to.


"The perhaps remarkable thing is that before Michael Jackson wrote The World Guide to Beer in 1977, nobody used the expression “beer style” at all. I searched through books on beer from the 1830s to the mid-1970s, and they talked about “divisions”, “species”, “kinds”, “varieties”, “types”, “classes” and “families” of beer, but never “styles”."

 

If people realised this than this site would be a little thin. No arguments or discussions about whether a particular beer is an IPA or a Pale Ale, a Porter or a Stout , an Old Ale or a Barley Wine.

 

Most profound thing I've read this year.
Its going in the holster.

 

I will add one more thing for those that like to read.
You must read Amber, Gold and Black, you just must. its by one of the BEST beer writers I have ever read.
Martyn Cornell.

also I must mention you would sure learn ALLOT from reading Ronald Pattinson books. if you want accuracy of History. I just read Porter! great stuff
brown beer rocks for Porter fans, I have Home Brewed a few and they are good...
I buy them for the kindle they rock!

Just my 2 cents.

 

The big question and why BJCP and others broke up these 4 types. Most American books seem to pick up on this in the early 1990's. I be the first to admit I just drank the stuff for 20 years before I even "thought" about it. I loved brown ales. I only bought my first MJ book In London at a bargain bin in some store in SOHO. It was more a novel coffee table type book if you know what that is? Could be an American expression.

 

oh I hate that catch all so much I get confused by it. I do not even think Lambic and Old browns (oulde bruins) belong together. We can thank the good old members of a committee for those.

don't get me started on the so called "wild ale" thing, geez its nuts.

 

My "proper" book was released today. Real publisher and all that shit.

 

yea I bought it already lol, well it was a pre order.
Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer
by Pattinson, Ronald
$18.53
Sold by: Amazon.com LLC

 

Dunno. I think the styles are merely suggestions and rough sketches and not really something that should be set as a rigid idea.
Similar to music, I think that styles when taken to seriously and end up shortselling the creative endeavor and put boxes and barricades up.

 

He said "British styles", so that wouldnt apply to American beer anyway. And the arguments over British styles are much rarer on here than American styles.

 

Which does something like browns fall into? I have trouble slotting Newcastle Brown or Samuel Smith Nut Brown into any of those 4, for example.

 

Lagers. As in the often stated "I don't like Lagers".

 

from brown beer book, by Ron Pattinson. I hope he does not mind...if so I will delete it asap.

Brown Beer
It was Brown Beers which caused the revolution in London brewing at the beginning of the 18th
century. Both Porter and Stout were types of Brown Beer, though originally bore different names.
Stout was first used to refer strong Beers and Ales of any type. Stout Brown Butt-Beer is the
precursor of what today is recognized as Stout. But there was also Pale Stout, a strong Beer made
from 100% pale malt. Barclay Perkins brewed a Pale Stout until just after 1800 (Barclay Perkins
brewing logs). As the 1700's progressed, Stout Brown Butt-Beer was shortened to Brown Stout, a
name London brewers continued to use right into the 20th century. It was the strongest Beer brewed
from brown malt in London.
Starting Butt-Beer (or Common Butt-Beer) is what would later come to be known as Porter. This
was the standard-strength Beer made from brown malt. Porter was no sudden new invention, but a
tweaked form of Brown Butt-Beers that had already been brewed for a considerable length of time.
The dramatic change wasn't in how these Beers were brewed, but matured and delivered. These
were the first Beers to be aged at the brewery and delivered to pubs ready to drink. For publicans,
not having to lay down their own stocks to mature, it was much more convenient. It was hit with
drinkers, too: "common Butt-beer is at this time in greater Reputation than ever in London, and the
Home-brew'd Drinks out of Credit" ("London and Country Brewer", 1736.)
Initially all Porter was aged for a relatively modest period. According to Obadiah Poundage "four or
five months was deemed to be sufficient age for it to be drunk at." No blending of "stale" and
"mild" Porter took place. This is quite different from 19th century practice, where only a portion of
Porter was aged, but for longer periods. A quantity of this aged Porter was mixed with "mild" Porter
before it was dispatched to pubs.
Brown Ale
The two main subtypes of Ale brewed from brown malt were Common Brown Ale and the stronger
Stitch. The main differences with Brown Beers were the hopping rate and the fermentation
temperature. Ales had only about 25% of the hops of the equivalent strength Beer. Ales also had a
warmer, faster primary fermentation.
"Thus also the common brown Starting Butt-Beer is Brewed, only boiled with more Hops an Hour
and a half, and work'd cooler and longer than the brown Ale "London and Country Brewer", 1736.
Mini Book Series volume V: Brown Beer
25
Common Brown Ale was usually drunk young. Stitch was sometimes aged. Ales intended for
ageing were more heavily-hopped than those intended for immediate consumption.
As Porter became all the rage, Brown Ales lost popularity and by the early 19th century had
disappeared. The name was not revived until a century later, when it was used to describe a very
different drink.

 

That's me

 

You proved my point.

What would you say about "I don't like ales.".

What would you say to someone that says "I don't like beer".

 

I just don't like when a brewer puts on the label saying the beer is one style but its actually a different style entirely. A recent American craft brewer I sampled said Hefeweizen on the label, but it had none of the typical German Hef characteristics at all in the flavor profile. American Wheat Ale is what it actually was (listed on BA as well) and what it tasted like. I do like many American Wheat Ales, but I bought that particular beer because I was in the mood for a Hef. and that is what it said on the label.

Also I agree with others above, it would be nice to know on the label the hops used in IPAs/Doubles as I usually can tell which hops I prefer over others now.

 

American strong ale. Definitely a catch all category.

 

I enjoy your input azorie, but I think comments like the one above can be misleading. Mr. Jackson might have coined the term "beer style" but the idea of categorizing beers obviously predates him. Let's also not diminish his work with dismissive language like "made up."

Do you reject the term "style" or the concept of it? You can use the term "types" if you prefer but I bet you'd ultimately use it to signify the same thing. If you reject the concept then see my comment below.

Beer "styles" are obviously at the heart of much of Ron's and Martyn's work. Would you suggest that the chapter titles in Amber, Gold and Black are meaningless? The first paragraph of the book uses the term "beer styles" and lists: bitter, IPA, mild, porter, stout, etc. (and all of these terms show up in lists from the 1800s... predating Mr. Jackson a wee bit). I'm just trying to wrap my head around you rejecting the term and then praising tomes of style.

Style ideas are muddy, rough, elastic, non-unanimous, evolving, and sometimes infuriating... but let's not take the notion for granted because of it.

 

Mild Ale.