Full disclosure: I'm a beer judge and a brewer. I use the BJCP, WBC and other styles to evaluate beer. I sometimes get paid to do it and or to write about it. Having said that,I'd like to know how the community feels about using those style guidelines to talk about beer. I will say that I know and understand that it is not all about the styles. Some of the best beers I've had truly transcend styles. But as inadequate as they are, I've not heard anything better. So what does the community think?
I think talking about styles is helpful in the brewing process because even if you plan on pushing the boundaries of a style from a technical stand point the base of the beer will still always resemble one more then another even if you make a kitchen sink type beer.They give consumers a general idea of the flavor profile expected. From a judging stand point they can be problematic and it always irks me a little bit when reviews say " true to style" That implies to me there is a baseline within every style that all beers should be based off of which is completely subjective . I agree there may not be anything better but points awarded based on being true to style need to be weighted lower than currently. In my opinion in the next 5 years there will be an even larger growth in sub categories. There are always those beers that have trouble fitting in a style and may never be commended with many awards but thats just how it goes
Being BJCP qualified will make you an excellent judge in BJCP competitions but that's all.The guidelines are neither accurate nor complete. There is one overriding problem with style guidelines and that is that they attempt to place constraints on long established beers and their names.For example brewers have used the terms Pale Ale, IPA and bitter to describe the same beer.For a century IPA has been applied to moderately hopped session strength bitters;these have been around for so long and in such numbers that the appellation is firmly established.Stout and Porter have long been used indiscriminately and again both names have been used to describe exactly the same brew.Because basically what we now think of as styles began as simply names. Mild exemplifies the dilemma.I love the stuff and drink dozens of different ones each year.But they exist from weak to strong, pale to dark,not very bitter to quite bitter, not very hoppy to quite hoppy.I couldn't begin to define the style because they've been around for so long and in such variation.Some milds are sold as bitters for reasons of fashion.Some milds are simply bitters with added caramel. So guidelines either have to be just that-very loose categories or split into narrow sub categories which straight away cause anomalies. They also need to be complete to have much value.Many central European lagers have been ignored completely.Never mind, they have compensated by completely inventing styles such as Scottish Ales which bear no relation to beers from that country.
You can talk about styles without having rigid style guidelines. Using arbitrary constructs like style guidelines to evaluate beer is a dangerous road to take.
There are a few styles listed on BA that I don't really think should be included (namely Kvass and Happoshu).
??? I dont see how that follows at all. To use the bjcp guidelines as an example, they dont have the complete czech lager styles because no one in the American homebrew community brews them. Or, at least not in large enough numbers to create a category. Same for zoigl (thought I would bring it up since Ron is in the thread). I homebrew something that is my best guess at being stylistically similar to a zoigl, but Ive never seen one in a contest. If they started filling up the catch-all category, they would get a category. Same goes in reverse for Scottish ales. Those categories may be completely fictitious, except they arent. American homebrewers were making them. Hence the need for the category. They may have been cloning a myth, but the beers they were making were very, very real. Scottish Ales may be entirely an American creation, no reason that having the name means they have to resemble a beer from Scotland. I dont think people in Wales confuse cheese with rabbit either.
I take your point about czech styles provided that people realise the BJCP guidelines are just for homebrewing competitions but unfortunately many regard them as a style Bible.And these guidelines simply aren't necessary for competitions, it's quite possible to set competition rules which don't need them. My biggest gripe is that they distort ther picture. Best Bitter isn't a quality or strength category, it's a name.The old joke was "If that's your best bitter why do you charge more for the other ones?" as "Best Bitter" was and is very often the weakest in the range.ESB was a trade name of a particular beer , the brewery thought it rather good and named it "Extra Special Bitter".....just a good marketing name. Your remarks about Scottish Ales make sense up to a point.But when actual Scottish beers are on the shelves,prospective buyers may be expecting entirely different beers from what's actually in the bottles.Scots love hops (wasn't Bert Grant a Scot?) but the BJCP says otherwise. On a homebrewing front, why try to brew "to style" when the guidelines are doubtful to begin with;it must actually be quite inhibiting.To me, homebrewing is about creating the sort of beer I like best regardless of where it seems to fit in.
They have an excellent education system in Scotland It's perhaps as relevant as saying "the Scots didn't use many hops because hops don't grow in Scotland" (actually they do and have been grown commercially)
This is true. But Im more likely to run into a "scottish ale" made by an American craft brewery that is somewhat similar to the bjcp standards. Just saw this a few minutes ago, posted yesterday at Ron's site: What makes me feel weird is this: in way, the BJCP are right in their description of 60/-, 70/- and 80/-. They say that they are different strength versions of the same thing. Which in the case of Maclay is certainly true. Where the BJCP falls down is in not recognising that they are the Scottish versions of Pale Ale rather than mythical "Scottish Ales". And all that bollocks about cool fermentation temperatures, roast barley for colouring, etc. As they are pale ales, there really was no reason to create a "scottish ale" category, the english descriptions work just fine*. The beers made with cool fermentation and roast barley arent mythical, they just have no historical connection to Scotland. It seems ultimately, your problem is with the name. Its possible "Scottish Ales" are a truly unique american creation. BJCP shouldnt change the name, but the description, make it clear in the history section that there is no connection to Scotland. *yeah yeah, the split of bitter, best bitter, esb isnt the most accurate thing either.
In some senses yes, in others no. Its the same for artists. Picasso or Van Gogh were geniuses at subverting realism, but they both could have done realistic works. And they did early on. If you are a cubist because you suck at drawing, you are a hack. But if you can show aspects of reality, by intentionally being unrealistic, you are brilliant. But first you need to be able to do realism. I dont "brew to style", but when I first started homebrewing, I often tried to. It was both fun and good training to see if I could make a beer that fit a fixed description. I was never into cloning specific beers -- its easier to buy Fuller's ESB than clone it -- but my ESB fits the "guidelines" while still retaining my style. And, you will enjoy this, I call my beer that fits the ESB style guidelines a "best bitter". But if I were to enter it in a competition again, it would be as an ESB.
As a Scotsman drinking Imperial Russian Stout made in Florida while boating in the Gulf of Mexico I'd say ..the times they are a changing...
In Germany, they grow hops mainly in the south where the beers are not so hoppy, and up in Friesland on the North Sea you get Jever. I think it comes down to what do the local beer drinkers like to drink. Edit - then in the USA you have the hop bombs from San Diego, which is 1150 miles from Yakima WA. Edinburgh is about 450 miles from East Kent. Go figure.
The Edinburgh and Alloa breweries are near a port.Scottish brewers also used ship loads (literally) of hops like Saaz which are just one sea journey away.And plenty from America too
There was once a cartoonist called Giles who in his pub scenes had one pump labelled "Best Bitter) and the other marked "Worst Bitter" ! If you enjoy a beer but feel it needs more hops you can brew to get this.Homebrewing to me is about suiting myself rather than a bunch of others who are as interested in style purity as in the enjoyment the beer gives.
I forgot the most wildly wrong claim: boiling wort into syrup. It's weird how that is accepted as historical fact by some.
Yeah, Ive done that, its easy at home. But in a brewery, where would the extra wort be boiled down to syrup? Sure, there are ways to do it, but seems like an amazing complicated thing to be doing on brewery scale. It does add something to the beers, IMO. The cool fermentation, low hops, roast barley seemed reasonable to me when I first heard them. But the syrup thing seemed like BS.
