Will craft beer ever get back to it's roots?

Never heard it doesn't mean its not there...

Take a look at what's motivating the ingredients lists, etc. for the Ancient Ales series they do.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-beer-archaeologist-17016372/

I've had a chance to meet McGovern and he's both quite good and quite serious about the value of what's happening with those beers.

 

For all of the Ancient Ales, they are recreating a historical beer based on archaeological information.
http://www.dogfish.com/ancientales

 

Or at least a basic pale ale.

 

OK, your turn, examples please? (From DFH if you will since I've more contact with their beers than with Shorts beers.)

 

While this is an interesting question to ask, I think my issue with it is the implied dichotomy contained therein. Innovation vs. Roots, to me, is a false choice. Many of the "solid" styles which you crave came about by some level of innovation, so the difference between a gimmick and reasonable evolution of beer production ultimately comes down to the eye of the beholder.

Keeping that concept in mind, take a look at one of my favorite beers: Tank 7, a Belgian-style saison that is dry hopped with a distinctively American hop--Amarillo. While the beer has a basis in the roots of craft beer, the innovation is what transformed it from a good beer into something utterly unique and amazing. I'd hate to live in a craft beer world where beers like Tank 7 never came to pass in the interest of avoiding more "weird" beers. That's the trick with innovation and boundary pushing--you can never know you've gone too far until you've gone too far because sometimes what you think will be too far is the push that gets you into the area of mind-blowing.

 

Yeah, but I prefer my stouts brewed with some roasted barley (un-malted), and oats, too.

I would also throw in traditional adjuncts like wheat, flaked corn, Belgian candi sugar, etc. No reason to only stick to Reinheitsgebot ingredients, as long as they are used for traditional styles.

 

Just DFH. As I said I don't know much about Shorts, never having been there and only having had about 3 of their beers.

And yes I'd like to know your examples. You're the one proposing they use wacky ingredients so I need examples to be able to agree or disagree with your claim. So far I've provided examples where the "wacky" seeming ingredients are not "just thrown into the pot." Seems fair enough to ask you for examples of where the ingredients are "just thrown into the post."

 

Their year round stuff is solid, and the ancient ales are interesting (but don't always hit the mark with me). But I agree that they sometimes stoop to gimmicks:
http://www.dogfish.com/community/bl...eakfast-brewed-with-25-pounds-of-scrapple.htm

 

I like that some innovation have turned into American staples, like coffee stouts and bourbon stouts. Each of those are just intrinsically tasty combinations and are here to stay.

Personally, I yearn for the day when breweries compete over who can make the cleanest, most well balanced pils (or style of your choosing). Woo me with quality, please.

 

I think there is room for both. I fall into the high quality traditional styles camp, but I can appreciate breweries that make small batches of experimental brews also. Marketing hype just typically goes along with innovative products.

 

For sure, we don't have to like them all or think they are all what we'd try if brewing or drinking. But there's also, in my view a substantive difference between trying some thing out once in awhile or testing public reaction in a brewpub small batch context and having an entire portfolio of nothing but gimmicks. One of the hallmarks of creativity is trying lots of things and keeping what works. Palo Santo and 61 both went from test batches to the core line up in relative short time frames.

 

Two examples do not a portfolio make. :-)

 

Fine, also please shoot for a list of beer still being brewed since the two you listed are on the "retired" list.

 

Hopefully not. The beer is better, more consistent and more creative today.

 

I think the roots are already established. In my opinion the craft beer industry is like a hardy sapling, the root system is well entrenched and quite healthy.

 

How many IPA's do we need for that matter? I agree with the last thing you said. If a brewer takes innovation to far the brew stops being beer just a flavored malt beverage. Ovaltine with 7% ABV or Lime-a-Rita.

 

That's what one of my friends asked. Who knows

 

Well, to a certain extent I agree. It's not right to release any beer that you haven't tried out as a pilot batch to ensure you've worked out all the kinks/flaws/issues and created a beer that people might actually want to drink.

But I suspect a lot of the "weird" beers *do* get tested and refined before brewers foist them on the public. At a certain point, something new/different has to be released to see if there is any interest in it--and the more boundary-pushing and new a beer is, the less of a barometer existed for making an educated guess as to whether people will like it or not. I mean, brewers release "standard" styles all the time that aren't kick-ass. On a certain level it's impossible to predict what the general public will even find "kick-ass".

The question being posed here, however, seemed like more of a call fo brewers to return to their roots at the expense of boundary-pushing. To me, that's a slightly different topic from brewers having a responsibility to make sure what they are releasing is good, although the two ideas are inextricably linked.

 

I won't start worrying until craft or micro brewers start using vortex bottles, cans that detect temperature, and other ridiculous things to make a buck.

 

I like gimmicks and innovation. It leads to more choices and sometimes a really great product. Let the brewers experiment on! I'll try anything once! Oh, except Balut!! Never!!!!