Why do some beer styles seem redundant?

beer is beer, right?

 

While I can sometimes understand the nuances, I agree. It is confusing. But it does give us information on how the styles developed and evolved.

 

Edited for accuracy

 

Man's quest to classify everything. Same reason there are 7 different subspecies of giraffe.

 

Here's sort of an answer to your dubbel/quad question.

http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/st-bernardus-abt-12-a-dubbel.226669/#post-2946626

 

That is why when people ask me what my favorite style is, I now usually say any of the wheat/yeasty type beers. Hefeweizens, witbier, kristalweizens, etc. No one knows the subtle differences in them, and they sure as hell can't pronounce them.

 

It is all about marketing really.


For instance if you name a beer a quadrupel, you are saying to costumers that it will taste similar to other well-known quadruples like Westvleteren 12. If you name it a Belgian Strong Ale or whatever, you are trying to position yourself as having a more unique product.

 

I get what you are saying, not sure about the example since those styles all taste very different. Sorry for nitpicking.

 

Ask Michael Jackson.

 

No I totally get what you are saying, and you are right, they do. But I have run into several instances where I tried to explain this to people and they are like 'yeah, sure, whatever'. I just gave up on it and started generalizing as 'wheat beers'. lol.

If someone isn't into craft, there is no point in trying to explain it sometimes.

 

I'll have to disagree here. Give me a blind taste test and I can definitely tell the difference between a Quad and a Belgian Dark. Same with Tripel and Belgian Pale Ale. As long as they're good representations of the style, they do taste very different.

But I do agree with you on porter/stout, they are basically the same. Most wheat beers taste pretty much the same too. Old Ale and Barelywine are also very similar.

 

Tell that to my girlfriend. She loves stouts and despises porters. She views porters as watered down stouts and believes they have no reason to exist.

 

you are lucky to have girlfriend that has an opinion on beer.

 

Has she tried V@S? Cuz she sounds awesome except for her wrongness about Porters.

 

You don't have to play along. I often call all session IPAs, APAs, IPAs, and DIPAs simply "hoppy ales". Chances are that anyone who might be irked by this is someone I wouldn't care to discuss beer with in the first place.

 

People love to categorize and define things. While sometimes necessary (or at least helpful) I think it has become overblown and counter-productive. Sometimes simple adjectives are better than trying to put everything into a neat little box.

 

We've been down that porter vs stout road many times before. Most recently here: http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/porter-vs-stout.208877/

I recommend that everyone avoids any further stout vs porter debate in this thread, because it can get ugly and detract from the OP's larger purpose in this discussion.

 

I think she had it and thought it was okay because of the coffee but was too sweet for her overall. That's other thing, she doesn't like sweet stuff all that much. There have been some thicker porters that she thought weren't bad but she definitely only truly enjoys thick, full-bodied stouts when it comes to dark beers. There are even some thinner stouts that she's like, "How dare they call this a stout! It's a porter and it sucks!" She's a very opinionated lady.