Add three styles

You are going to end up with a style for every beer if you're not careful! There are already a ridiculous number of "styles" whereas in fact there are not all that many in essence.Variations within a style are not in themselves styles.For example ESB never was a style and all the porters/stout entries are just parts of the spectrum of one style which is porter.

 

But I'm not even mentioning the existing styles of close similarity. Some could likely be combined at little loss overall. Maybe Sahti doesn't need its own style, but something like an "historical" style would be nice I think, and I still think if dubbel, tripel, etc get a style then why not quad?

If there are enough entries in competition then what's the harm?

The more specific a style is then the more precisely I know what to expect as a consumer when I order or buy a beer.

 

Russian Rye Imperial Hoppy Stouts.
Not sure if that would work because I'm not a brewer but it brings together all the things I like in beer.

 

barrel aged american light lager

 

Yes, but there is work to be done by Americans to try and put names on them all. And then to argue whether those names are all that is needed.

That's why each beer has a "name".

If you need to put a moniker on everything, then you should realize Quad is the same as Belgian Strong Dark (yes, it is). That is one that has been combined at little overall loss, since all of those names are just constructs anyway.

There is no harm of course. But the irritation is that it isn't all about competitions. You get threads like this that make it obvious that people think they need to use these names in general conversation. Please remember that putting a name on something is linguistically just a shortcut for describing it. Take a step backward--see each brew for its own merits and describe what you're tasting instead of forcing the beer to fit into a name set.

I bet you hated not knowing what the prize in the Cracker Jack box was, didn't you?

 

Imperial Quad
Imperial Tripel
Imperial Dubbel

These all taste just like regular quads, tripels, and dubbels, its just that americans got their hands on them and changed the name

 

I love fresh hop beers, but I don't think so.

I wouldn't want wet hopped pilsners to be grouped with wet hopped IPAs.

 

Panko-encrusted dynamite chipotle p'zone Sahti

 

Sigh, I'll play.

Name alone isn't always much of a descriptor. Some breweries include style or type in the name, others just make up anything with no indication of what the beer is.

So if I need a moniker on everything I should be happy that two styles have been combined?

I could see this playing out as such - "Every Quad is a BSDA, but not every BSDA is a Quad."

And this would be true. A Quad is a specific style with specific flavor profiles, and an historic origin. When I order a Quad at a bar I know precisely what I am ordering and what I expect the beer to be. When I order a BSDA I do have an idea of what the beer might be, but the category is typical of Belgian brewing - there are little guidelines governing how a beer is called a BSDA. It might be 6% or 14%. It might be hoppy or extremely sweet. And none of that is wrong, but it also tells me very little about a beer I have never tried.

I really don't know what "loss" you're referring to, as you are not addressing why I prefer to see styles maintained or specified/added. You seem to be more concerned about semantics and abstract language philosophy. There are real and hard reasons to have styles.

Of course it isn't all about competitions, but that is one of the primary reasons to have styles in the first place. I'm all for beers that break the rules and flaunt, combine, or otherwise push the envelope of what is perceived as status quo for a given style of beer or facet of brewing. And again, it feels odd to me that there are multiple light lager categories but my Belgian IPA gets judged against a Quad in the same competition.

I really do not see the need to continue with the abstractions here, but the names most certainly are a shortcut that I am thankful exists. Two conversations:

• "Hey Bob, I just tried a new beer." "What kind of beer?" "Oh, it was kind of dark brown, fairly clear, with a short off-white head and a nutty aroma. The flavor was slightly roasty and biscuity, with moderate hop flavor and some soft sweetness and a mild coffee note at the end." "Ohh, I think I know what kind of beer you're talking about."
• "Hey Bob, I just tried a new beer." "What kind of beer?" "American Brown Ale."

Yeah in the first scenario you get a full description, but there are plenty of times where I don't need or want all of that information. If I want an in depth review or conversation I will ask for it or know where to find that information.

I'll bet you order beer blindly without regard for style, price, size, serving method, or freshness don't you?

Not everyone wants to walk into a pub and order "Ale" and have that be the only understanding needed between parties. This type of situation tells me that there is little diversity going on.

As a consumer the style descriptor also clues me into what the brewer is intending their product to be. If I get a Porter that has DIPA level bitterness and green hop flavor with very little roast flavor, I am likely to be disappointed (not what I expected) and if I review the beer be more harsh on it since the brewer told me that the beer was going to be one thing but what was in the bottle was something else. Had they called it a "Black IPA" I might find it perfectly agreeable to my tastes and either way not fault the brewer in a review for the same features I faulted the porter for.

If their beer is especially odd then sure, the name can help clarify the contents (a RIS aged on pecans and espresso beans, an Amber IPA, Hefeweizen with lemon zest and tangerine juice added, etc). But even here names are necessary. Otherwise it's a "black, roasty, bitter, high abv, thick beer aged on pecans and espresso beans." Or do we need to do this again without the names "pecan" or "espresso." Maybe "nut" and "coffee" are better for you. Or maybe the name should include descriptions of what a nut is instead...

Abstractions, constructs, shortcuts - yeah we all get the theory behind language. But the reality is that there are plenty of practical reasons to name things and support the idea of beer styles.

 

I do, yeah. Well, maybe with the exception of price. The other things I couldn't care less about. Once I take a sip I'll figure the rest out for myself.
I can determine whether I like it or not regardless of what the brewer intended by putting a certain style name on it. That's why I drink beer--because I like to find things that I like. Not for reviewing, not for competitions, and not so that I can put it in a box with other similar-but-slightly-different beers and go away thinking that I will sleep better at night. I'll try anything. If the brewer did a good job at his or her craft then I probably will like it.
I'm sure you know that, aside from very broad categories, 'styles' are a relatively recent thing. And the exaggeration into dozens and even hundreds of these categories is a particularly American thing. I don't buy into it. I know what they are, but I don't think they are necessary to enjoy a beer.
There is plenty of diversity going on, I'm just sure that I don't need to categorize it to enjoy it.

 

You are completely correct, but these points don't do anything to diminish why styles exist or the benefits of them.

I, too am happy to try anything once, and love the experimental stuff. I don't trust others' opinions over my own when deciding if I like a beer or concept. But, sometimes I walk into a bar or store and I want and IPA or I know that I don't want anything really strong or heavy. Here's just one more reason I like to see IPA, DIPA, Wheat, Rye, Stout, Gueuze, etc listed - it helps me more easily find something that I am more likely to want to drink. If I know that I generally dislike Barleywines, then I will typically avoid them (esp if the price is high). So I don't want to feel duped into buying a beer just to find out that it is in fact a style that I already knew I didn't want to drink.

Like we've both said, the styles aren't hurting anything, so why care if some people want them (esp us Americans)? If you don't care about them then ignore it, you'll enjoy your beer just as much either way.

 

Definitely India Pale Lager (and Double). Nowhere to put Hoponious Union/ Sword Swallower currently.