Beer Review Terminology

I think most people write reviews primarily for themselves, to record the experience so that months and years later they have a "snapshot in time" of the beers they've had and a rough ranking of which ones they liked the most. I personally review beers because I've found that except for the truly outstanding and horrendous ones, my memory is pretty lousy at capturing much at all about most of them even a few weeks later. I'm sure drinking so much beer doesn't help matters.

 

Your opinion on other people's opinion is just as worthless as their original opinion.

 

Actually I think it's twice as worthless. Like a copy of a copy.

 

Or useful of you look at it a different way.

 

Figs, Apricots, Fresh Squeezed Oranges, and a little bit of burnt newspaper.

 

I went through a phase where I tried to include every possible ester and faint note in a beer's aroma and flavor profile...and i would just list them. And while I still like to identify as much as I can in a beer, I realized later that my reviews didn't mean as much to me when I just listed every flavor essence possible. I now prefer just noting which aromatic and flavor notes were most prominent; What was most noticeable at the start, how it primarily finished, etc. And ultimately, my overall impression is what i love reading again in the future.

 

I can understand where you're coming from. It is useful, to me...and therefore to everybody else .... that some elaborate descriptors are used. Sometimes I won't find certain flavors until somebody else mentions them. It's a learning thing for me. Other times I think some descriptors are just plain off whack, but that's the beauty.

On another note, sometimes a beer brings back thoughts, places, situations, and in the review maybe somebody will mention that. I think this helps understand a beer...or at least the situation. If a reviewer says a certain beer reminds him/her of the time they were helping renovate a burned down brewery during the summer of '02, that helps me get a 'feel' for the beer...even though they didn't describe it at all. Still, there's one beer reviewed on BA someone described as smelling like 'goat sex'. That one didn't help

 

You've just touched on one of my pet peeves in the beer world: Over the top reviews. Appropriate flavor profile descriptors are totally fine like, citrusy, piney, tropical fruits for hops, malty, bisquty, toasty, roasty, chocolate or coffee like, fruity esters, clean, dry, sweet. You get the idea but some reviews a person will say something like "I taste a fresh baked roll on a warm summer day with peach jam lightly drizzling on top of it with a hint of blah blah blah" I know a beer is a personal experience and people taste different things but sometimes it's just like come on man, you're making that shit up. 2 cents.

 

LMAO!!!! Made my first two reviews today, I wasn't sure that I ever could taste all of the flavors the way you were supposed to, but KBS CBS I gave it a shot and felt like I might have done ok.

 

Who are you to decide what the beer's "essence" is and what are just the "minutae"? Functionally, beyond the vaguest of descriptors, it's impossible for you to justifiably tell me that what I feel is important to include in the description isn't important. Plus I've never seen some description so obscure that it left me with absolutely no feeling for what the beer would be like.

 

This. When I come across a review saying something insane like that I am like "well I sure as hell haven't had that, and I doubt he has."

 

Agree completely.

 

That phase for me lasted about 2 beers. I am the same way in that my overall impression of the beer is whats most important to me when I have the beer again down the road and go back to read my review.

I list the obvious things. The things that come to mind. I think about norms for the style, like grapefruit and citrus for IPAs. Or fruits for wheats and saisons. But I dont list specific spices unless its really obvious. I don't list specific fruits unless it comes to mind immediately. This seems to work pretty well for me. I think most my reviews would be boring to most BAs, potentially helpful to someone who doesn't know much about a style, or beer in general. But they work for me.

 

Are there non-food related adjectives that would better describe a beer? For all intents and purposes beer is food, and thus comparable to it. When you taste a new food or preparation, isn't your first thought to compare it to something you've had before? Not sure why this is an issue for you.

Maybe if you can name a few contradictions your point will make more sense, but as it stands it seems like you're mostly just annoyed with the wordy/more verbose reviews out there.

This comment goes out to several people posting here, not just the OP: why must a review only declare the most basic and generic descriptors? If all we ever used were terms like 'citrus,' 'pine,' and 'toasty' reviews would very quickly all read exactly the same from beer to beer.

Frankly for me it is the "perceived" flavors and aromas that make some beers amazing and others quite average. A more complex beer will get a more descriptive review from me because it can trigger more sensations and memories, etc.

As for the narrative - shouldn't the review be "a singular and rather unique narrative of the reviewer's consumption of the beer?" I don't want to read cookie-cutter responses - go use the thoughtless reviewing features over at ratebeer if that's all you want.

Sometimes specificity is beneficial - I like citrus in my beer but maybe I dislike lemon and pineapple aromas. Here's where instead of citrus I want to read if it smells like grapefruit or tastes like pineapple and orange rind.

I don't say that a beer tastes or smells like something you have never had - I say that it tastes and smells like something that I have had. If a beer triggers thoughts of lychee and guava why shouldn't I say it? For many this is the fun of reviewing - the exploration of everything that a beer can be. One thing's for sure - if you refuse to look for it you're almost never going to find it. And if all you want is a good tasting fruity IPA then you'll be happy, but maybe missing out on all of the wonderful nuance that the beer is capable of producing.

Part of me feels like some people are just frustrated here - not with the review per se, but because they don't taste/smell the same things that others do. This is both irrational (everyone tastes things slightly differently) and possibly naivete/ignorance (an untrained palate is less likely to find the same level of complexity that a trained one will).

When I was young all coffee was bitter and disgusting, and I needed tons of sugar to stomach it. Now I know that coffee is extremely complex and doesn't have to be harsh or bitter. My first "sushi" was a California Roll and I loved it, now I know that California Roll is disgusting compared to the real deal at a good restaurant. Scotch used to taste like straight rubbing alcohol to me, and now I know that it can be harsh or smooth, peaty, earthy, smokey, sometimes fruity, etc (and my palate here is extremely young too).

Beer is no different. So while I am sure some users are just spouting whatever nonsensical superlatives they can conjure up, I promise that many more are actually tasting and smelling those things. Try to find them yourself next time and I'd bet that at least some of those descriptors would begin to make some sense.

And hell, if for any other reason - wordier/more complex reviews are more fun to write. They challenge my palate and brain more - the more specific you try to get the more accurate you need to be.

I review long and short depending on time constraints, mood, the beer, and sometimes if using notes vs a live review. But I do tend toward the longer more thorough reviews... I have honestly gotten plenty of comments/BM's for reviews such as that one from people who really enjoyed the read. One guy told me that my review of MoaS convinced him to open the bottle he was on the fence about cellaring instead. Sure, some people probably just skip over the longer reviews, but plenty appreciate them as well. Plus, as mentioned by others, most of my reviews are much more for my own benefit than anyone else's.

 

I really enjoy taking the time to review beers. I may be lousy at my descriptions and very repetitive, but I think I agree with most of the community about beers are tasty. Sometimes I am in ah at why a certain beer has a high ranking, but not often. I sometimes think that reviewing a beer the first time you have, can cause a little inflation in your score. I also try my best to not judge a beer that isn't necessarily my favorite style on its own merits. The styles I love I am tougher on, because I feel I have had enough of them to be more critical. Anyway just my thoughts on reviewing. Can only do it wrong if you are really disrespectful to the brewery and the brothers who changed the beer world, in the best possible way. I have had so many awesome beers because of people on here's reviews. If you are going to spend the amount of money on some of these beers, it is nice to know it is loved my others.

 

If your review style pleases you, that is all that is required. If no one else can gain benefit from it, then you will routinely be passed over by those who look for guidance

I tend to give the details I would find most helpful to remembering truly a beer's taste and character when looking at the review in future. I think this also is a help to others, but that is because the best we humans can do to communicate sense perceptions is to accurately describe them best we can.

I agree with the helpful nature of specific things you reference positively, but you get vague with regards to what you don't like. Perhaps you could gain more traction with your post if you gave some actual examples of what you don't like.

 

Your post gave me a chill up my leg!

That's why Matthews will never be as popular as Bill O'Reily. O'Reilly at least knows to RAISE HIS VOICE MUCH LOUDER when cutting someone off and looking like a jerk in similar situations.

 

I'd really like to know just how "obscure" some of these foods are that you guys are complaining about. And either way, if you can be really specific about your sensory descriptions I'll take it over gross generalizations.

Hell, some brewers are using equally obscure ingredients. Jackie O's uses "Paw Paw" fruit and "spicebush." Both are actual fruits/plants native to southern Ohio. Until they brewed beer using them I had never heard of either and felt that they were made-up, just for the oddity factor, etc. But once I learned about each one I was happy to have tried something new as well as learn something new.

For the Stone/Elysian/Bruery La Citrueille Celeste de Citracado I again had to look up "fenugreek" before reviewing so I knew what the intention was and what flavor compounds could be traced to which ingredient.

My point is that the breweries are forcing us to deal with these strange and uncommon foods either way, so one might as well embrace it and try to learn something rather than get annoyed by the situation.