Beer Styles Have Finally Been Updated!

Should we eliminate Belgian Dubbel and Quads, and just have Belgian Dark Ales?

Or Vienna lagers, Oktoberfests, Dunkels, Maibocks, and Doppelbocks and call them all German amber/dark lagers?

I'm all for less styles, but I don't think they're pointless. My main point was really just that it makes it a pain in the ass to find what some of the top rated versions of some styles are if they're all lumped into the same category.

 

The Dubel, Tripel, etc have some tradition, and often differ in taste besides the alcohol content. Imperials seem to exist only to differentiate the alcohol content, and any style that exists primarily to differentiate it from lower alcohol brethren should be eliminated.

 

There is a lot of difference between a pale ale and a double IPA, and to put them in the same category is fairly silly, in my opinion. They have different levels of hopping, different malt amounts, and obviously different alcohol content, which all makes for a very different sensory experience across the board. As @AlcahueteJ said, it will also create a situation where it's very difficult to find the best pale ale or best IPA since imperials will always be rated higher due to them appealing more to the masses.

I also don't agree with this. Russian Imperial stout has an English history and tastes very different than its American counterparts with a focus on roastiness, molasses, dark fruits, licorice, and dryness as opposed to chocolate, coffee, and sweetness. American ones also tend to be the ones to feature adjuncts and additives. Compare something like Founders Imperial Stout to Founders Breakfast Stout.

Also, Russian Imperial stout has history similar to what @bbtkd claims as the reason for keeping Dubbel and Quad as separate styles, which I find interesting since Imperial IPA and IPA also have history different than pale ale, and, as I said above, IIPA, IPA, and pale ale all taste noticeably different, certainly enough to justify being different styles.

Just because Russian Imperials aren't made much anymore does not mean we should eliminate them. They're fairly common in imports, and I actually advocate adding other older/historical styles like those that @metter98 advocated for above.

More styles is a good thing as categorization inevitably helps a person find exactly what they are looking for.

 

Holy crap, I saw this notification for the original post but somehow didn't read this. Just actually saw the style updates and I am floored...how in the world did you do all this work?! Seems like a lot and I'm sure there may be some stragglers. Really awesome updates happening lately!

 

But at what point does it become ludicrous? Not there yet, but getting closer. In my earlier example, what if it is decided that barrel aged variants deserve their own style? That alone could potentially double the number of styles since nearly every style has been barrel-aged. Then we could end up with barrel-aged variants for bourbon, oak, rum, wine, tequila, etc. It's like adding a new dimension to a matrix. Recently the Brewers Association added juicy/hazy and classical/contemporary as descriptors - so there are more dimensions. So, make mine a Rum Barrel Aged Hazy Contemporary Imperial Pumpkin Chile NEIPA. That's unique, so I demand it be a new style.

 

I agree that it can become ridiculous fairly rapidly, but I don't think that we are there yet. Barrel-aging is more of a modifier than a truly new style, in my opinion. Perhaps it could be a sort of tag (if such a function was added to BA). Either way, barrel-aging does not create a new style. A barrel-aged IPA is still an IPA. A barrel-aged kölsch is still a kölsch. Just the same that an IPA with strawberry doesn't make strawberry IPA a new style, it's just a new twist on the IPA. If strawberry IPAs became ubiquitous, then maybe we should reevaluate, which is where I tie my argument for keeping pale ale, IPA, and IIPA separate: they are all very common and are historically important, both more than adequate reasons that I think we should keep them around indefinitely.

I see where you're coming from, and taken to the extreme, of course I agree, but I don't think keeping such obviously different beers as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Other Half All Green Everything (or SNPA and Knee Deep Simtra if you want two West Coast options) in separate categories is ridiculous; in fact, I think it's necessary to keep the beer styles function of this site useful.

 

Why? Brut IPA is the only "Brut" beer style per se that exists thus far. What other "Brut Ales" are you talking about?

That I might agree with. All imperial stouts--whilst unique on their own merits--have a pretty similar makeup. They're all high abv stouts--though hops, malts, and yeasts may differ.

 

But by this logic, why have different IPA categories? They're all highly-hopped pale ales--though hops, malts, and yeasts may differ.

Russian imperial stout is a historical style as well as one that is still in production today. Most Scandinavian stouts (that haven't gone directly to pastry stout) are still in the Russian imperial mold. I know I would be disappointed if I picked up a highly-rated imperial stout hoping for American-style and getting Russian-style, or vice versa. It's just as important as keeping English IPA and Belgian IPA around (which is indeed important, before someone says that proves the argument for getting rid of RIS).

 

Yeah, or any other lemonade. Served with bitter or lager.

 

I'm sure these categories are home-brew orientated, which is fine, but worth noting that 'English ESB' is an entirely American designation. Anything brewed in the manner ascribed would simply be be termed 'strong ale' in the UK.

 

Dubbels and Tripels certainly are much different. But a Quad is "simply" a higher alcohol Dubbel.

I put simply in quotations because there's more to it than that, but for the sake of this argument, it makes sense to me. For example, it's akin to the difference between an IPA and a double IPA.

I'm actually a fan of adding "barrel-aged" as a separate style. But this would need to be very carefully done and thought out for the reasons you mention.

I don't however think there should be "styles" for every adjunct you throw in there. I think "barrel-aged" suffices. Just like there isn't a different style for every different hop that an IPA may use. For example, "Mosaic IPA" and "Galaxy IPA" aren't different styles.

 

You call them Brut Ales because that is what they are. No need to call them IPAs except marketing,

 

Yes, definitely

 

I think we nearly now have accomplished what appears to be the goal of having so many styles. There is complete confusion and impossible to resolve debates about what any of them are, or should be.

As an amateur mycologist I have been through so many newly refined naming conventions in my 30+ years that I may come to this with some "baggage", but the reason I bring it up is we now, in mycology, have a definite way of categorizing that will give finality to it.

Beer styles are based on so many different ways to determine what constitutes a style that it has become a confusing morass. What is needed is a rethinking of what makes a style that can be applied uniformly and permanently and equally to all beers. In mycology it is genetic identification that is that final determinant that is now used for all fungus (it used to be part morphological, part visual spore characteristics, part other factors). Not sure what it ought to be for beer, but can't we at least agree that some sort of convention similar to modern cladistics that makes sense for beer needs be applied?

 

FTFY

 

I’d fall in this camp except for the fact that I don’t know how you’d do it carefully and avoid doubling styles.

It is adding a completely different type of “ingredient” to the recipe, and more importantly - a barrel aged stout tastes much more different from its non-BA counterpart than an IPA to its DIPA version. I’m thinking Bourbon County Stout / Night Stalker vs Crooked Tree / Double Crooked Tree.

On the side of aging on or adding fruit - I agree, new styles shouldn’t be added there, but I do find it interesting that this is “ok” to differentiate it for lambics but not for anything else.

 

Maybe no historical importance, but I definitely think something like Fort Point is a lot different than something like Headroom, certainly different enough to justify being a different style.