Does Minnesota drink beer the right way?

The article itself is a typical rant by CP trying to stir the pot. They are often successful with that approach. The topic is with discussing, the article is not.
I've found some variation in Keller Pils, albeit small (I've enjoyed quite a few of them since they went year-round). One batch was significantly over carbonated, so even Summit isn't immune to batch variability.
I'm impressed and pleased by the increase in local and regional beers on the shelves today compared to 10 years ago. When I moved in 2009 the two shops I found closest to me had about 80% macro and imports of unknown age that I was mostly disinterested in. Today it's close to 80% local and regional beers, and that seems to be reflected in a surprising number of other shops. We're living in the midst of a real deal beer revolution, and it's not limited to hazy IPAs and pastry stouts. The rising tide has floated all boats, and there's plenty of variety from local breweries out there to enjoy.

 

Eh. I buy a decent amount of summit, but this gives off an out-of-touch, old-man-yells-at-cloud vibe. Shaking his fists at the younger generation. The fact is, summit has been outpaced in most ways by the younger folks he’s trying to denigrate (aside from Keller pils). Adapt or get out of the way. And I’m saying that as someone that doesn’t care for a lot of the newer styles of sweet, adjunct laden beer.

 

One other note that I find of interest, to my knowledge Summit has well over 200 shareholders with no one holding more than 15%. Obviously that leaves a lot of people with very small stakes, but makes me wonder if it ever results in a "too many cooks in the kitchen" type situation where the direction of the brewery is up for debate. Certainly it's a fine line between innovating, chasing trends, and standing pat, but will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next 5 years.

 

I am so happy that Summit does not follow trends and disagree with people who think they need to innovate to keep up. Releasing something like the 120 Schilling feels novel in the current MN culture, but it is still traditionalist. There is room for both traditionalists and innovators.

However, Mark should keep his mouth shut, as he sounds cranky. He should talk about why Summit is different (execution, tradition, variety of styles) without degrading others.

 

Given the City Pages style, I suspect two things:

1. Stutrud's quotes are technically accurate, and
2. The context has been intentionally lost to create controversy

 

But I feel most regional stronghold craft brewers had fairly limited portfolios prior to 2005. The problem with the MN market until recently was lack of competition.

 

Thanks! I can shake my fist at clouds on my lawn with the best of them!

 

I hope you never get trapped wind, you might level a city block.

Edit: Go ahead and waste your time litigating beer opinions--I try my best not to get drawn in to that bullshit anymore. But you're being such a hypocrite! Fucking ageism? My dude, half your schtick is gaslighting young beer drinkers!

 

The average Beer Advocate's misunderstanding of the definition of the word 'innovate' is sad to put it nicely.

 

Are you trying to tell me more hops and more adjuncts isn’t innovative??!!

 

I’m just now catching up to the comments, but methinks that true innovation may also require stuffing a capped and waxed, twelve ounce longneck down the gizzard of a taxidermied stoat.

By this standard, Summit has failed miserably.

 

It also seems that some of the BA old guard is not fully clear on the definition of innovation, either.

 

After taking another look at the article I am not really sure what its purpose is. Is it to make people feel bad for drinking pastry stouts and NEIPAs or for waiting in line for new beers? If people are interested in something, telling them they are dumb or wrong for doing it doesn’t seem like an effective strategy to get them to chug well executed lagers.

 

I'd argue the purpose is, as others have mentioned, to stir the pot. The clickbait headline & feeble attempt to pit "old vs. new" brewers is transparent.

And exceedingly lazy. The central question the article poses is an interesting one that could have spawned a very interesting article. Instead, the character writing this takes the cheap way out. City Pages has never been known for its consistently hard-hitting journalistic chops, but this is feeble even by their standards.

 

I like your synopsis especially with City Pages. While i do agree with some of Mark Studrud points on classics. Beer like football has changed to meet new demographics taste and likes of the next generation of drinkers. Classic's (beer) will always be venerable but for this decade the game has changed.

 

Good breweries who brew the sugary beers you mentioned will likely figure out how to make traditional ales and lagers. They are making beer it's not like it's a big secret out there.

 

What breweries make sugary beer in your opinion? What styles are they producing that you find sugary? What exactly do you mean by sugary anyway?

 

Is the answer one post above, where this part of @islay's post was quoted?