Beer styles more breweries should consider making

Yes, I think this is exactly what's happening in many cases: The American brewers are obsequiously bowing to the baseless whims of the Belgians* in hopes of obtaining or maintaining access. It's sycophantic but strategic. I do have more respect for that pragmatic motivation than merely respecting wishes out of cultural deference or some sort of assumed inherent inferiority. I still think on the net the failure of many Amercan breweries to call their lambics what they are holds back the growth of the style in the United States, to the detriment of the small proportion of consumers who appreciate the style and the slightly larger portion that may be able to develop a taste for it if they had more exposure to it.

* I should clarify that I'm sure there are many Belgian lambic brewers who rightfully have no problem with non-Belgians using the term; it's probably a vocal minority that is so righteously unreasonable.

 

Is it one of those "protected terms"? Like champagne, bourbon, etc.

 

I love lambics, especially the best Belgian lambics. That doesn't mean I respect the baseless position that some of Belgian lambic producers take on this semantic marketing issue. I think the idea that "lambics" can be produced only in Belgium is ahistorical, alegal, pseudoscientific (in the exaggerated claims of the importance of local microbiota), unreasonable, and ultimately silly, and I think the push by certain Belgian producers for that position is wrongheaded, clearly works to give them an edge in the marketplace (and thus suspicious in its motivation), and ideally would be ignored or actively countered by non-Belgian lambic producers. Some merited irreverence would be beneficial to non-Belgian lambic producers and consumers in this instance.

 

People like to think that having designed "an edge in the marketplace" is a bad, greedy or unethical thing. People need to take the specific context into account though. It's a miracle that (so-called) "traditional" lambic beer production has survived. If the producers of such beers didn't continuously fight to maintain production, it would probably have disappeared. If a hypothetical fourth-generation brewer of such beers struggled through difficult times when their unsweetened beer wouldn't sell, and whose livelihood depends on the continued success of their brand feels that he's earned the right to label his product as something from a specific tradition in such a way that others outside of that tradition shouldn't capitalize on, then perhaps that's an edge deserved.

 

Well fucking said.
Without amazingly committed people, Lambic would have disappeared. They deserve some protection and our respect.

 

Firstly, I don't think merely carrying on or reviving a style gives a producer any special claim to use the style name. Secondly, don't you think that the American producers that are faithfully recreating old lambic brewing traditions are helping to keep the style alive and to further popularize it? Often American producers, especially those that have adopted the embarrassingly deferential "Méthode Traditionnelle" terminology, are going out of their way to adhere strictly to methods and traditions that some modern Belgian lambic makers (quite reasonably) eschew. That is to say that some American Belgian makers have a better claim to call their beer "lambic" than do some of the Belgians. I think a guy like Rob Tod at Allagash, who took a big risk and invested a lot of money over a decade ago to bring lambic brewing to America, has done much more to promote the lambic style than many of his Belgian contemporaries, certainly many of the younger ones. Some of those "amazingly committed" people are in the United States, and they deserve every bit as much respect as those who happen to be of Belgian origin.

 

Yes, it seems like many American brewers do not care about their use of the term Kölsch (but keep in mind the use of stating “Kölsch style” for a little grey area). I don’t think that that means that “respect” isn’t part of the reason why you don’t see many beers stating “lambic” on the front label made in the US… but I didn’t mean to oversimplify the situation. Ron mentioned “respect” above, and it was a key word used by both sides in the HORAL/Jester King situation. Granted, Jester King probably felt the need to specifically use the word in response to HORAL.

So, why the difference in attitude between those styles? I think Roguer has a key point, and it involves a barrier to entry at the brewery level. Lambic production is the opposite of Kölsch production in this regard. There are relatively few US brewers who will adopt lambic production techniques, and this will impact the average attitude of those dedicated brewers. On the other hand, Kölsch was probably given attention since US craft brewers could adopt it as a way to make a beer with their house “top-fermenting” yeast that could appeal to Bud drinkers. I’m speculating, but think of a 90s US brewpub with one yeast strain making something on that end of the spectrum. I’m not commenting on whether that’s a proper Kölsch, but just stating what I imagine to be the mindset for brewers. Kölsch was an easy answer. Also keep in mind that US brewer interest in lambic happened later than Kölsch and the potential differences in beer culture at that time. The first US brewery to use a coolship to make beer in the lambic tradition was in the late 2000s.

Regarding respect, it’s clear that lambic gets more respect from beer geeks than Kölsch, and by extension, you can probably say the same about brewers too. American brewers and fans actually care enough to know the names of the people who produce lambic. Other than US brewers who actually worked or corresponded with German Kölsch producers (like Schlafly and Gaffel… in which case the brewer was married to a Köln native), I would bet that a huge majority of US brewers couldn’t name a single person who produces Kölsch. It’s safe to say that as a whole, we are far more romantic about lambic than Kölsch.

Regarding the notion of US brewers using the lambic name without the same production process, one just needs to look at what happened with Samuel Adams Cranberry Lambic. First brewed in the 90s, the beer has been absolutely vilified and the name was a tremendous reason why. In the end, a big difference between the attitudes could simply be a case of the differences in how loud the protests are (on both sides of the Atlantic).

Don’t take any of the above as a slight against Kölsch. Personally, I like Kölsch more than lambic.

 

So, @zid and @patto1ro how do you feel about American brewers who apart from not being in Belgium do commit themselves to the other strict traditional methods of lambic brewing? I.e. the exact opposite of this worst-case scenario that I'm sure @islay would decry as much or more than anyone else:

Can a brewer not based in Belgium ever make a claim to the lambic name or are they defacto, no better than Sam Adams?

Or maybe more directly... In your opinion, does location matter more than any other consideration to call a beer lambic?

If so, that's fine, I just want to hear you say that specifically.

I ask this because I'm not sure if you've responded specifically what @islay has said about American brewers honoring traditional methods and continuing to support the style. Furthermore, I thought it was interesting, @zid, that after your first statement support Belgium lambic makers, you then expounded on the difficult barrier to entry for US brewers to make lambics [vs kolsch], so you seem to make some distinctions on the subject, but I'm not clear what exactly you think they are.

 

I think that's great and a worthy endeavor. I don't think they should ignore the wishes of the Belgian lambic producers who don't want them to sell the beer as "lambic" though.

More than any other consideration? No. Does it matter? Yes.

I think the points that @islay states are valid, but they don't trump the wishes of the Belgian producers.

I am probably not following you correctly. I only brought up the "barrier to entry" to illustrate that the group of American brewers who want to make beers in the lambic tradition will be relatively small and inherently dedicated.

 

With due respect, I think your answers to a very direct question are just a little evasive or trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I realize that. What caught my attention was seeing you discuss the difficulty of making lambic-styles in the US literally one post after so clearly stating Lambic can only be from Belgium. It indicated a shift or more nuanced opinion than before, that I was hoping could explain.

 

I think we might be having some communication issues, but I know you're a thoughtful person so it could be my fault.

I honestly don't know how you got that.

You're reading into things in a way unintended. In the earlier post, I said: "If a [Belgian lambic brewer] feels that he's earned the right to label his product as something from a specific tradition in such a way that others outside of that tradition shouldn't capitalize on, then perhaps that's an edge deserved." In the latter post I said: "There are relatively few US brewers who will adopt lambic production techniques [...] The first US brewery to use a coolship to make beer in the lambic tradition was in the late 2000s."

 

I'm a fan of styles now on the "endangered species" list, that is to say the craft brews that once required genuine skills to make: those with a wonderful transition of complex flavors from palate, to finish, and to aftertaste--and to experience such cleanly in a wonderful, well-balanced experience.

Such existed in the golden age of craft brewing, before it had been discovered that overly-hopped product requiring all of the brewing skills of a monkey could be marketed in such a way that shriveling one's taste buds would be considered to be "macho"--after which double IPAs, Quadruple IPAs, Quadrillion IPAs etc. came to dominate the market.

OK--I know I'm dreaming. 9000IBU IPAs dominate 90% of the "craft brew" shelf space here in California. 900IBU Pale Ales dominate 90% of the rest.

Should you actually favor stouts and porters as I do, 90% of what little is left of such space will have as adjuncts coffee, peanut butter, marshmallows, or God knows what. If you're lucky you might find a precious few "milk stouts" but the wonderfully complex traditional porters--without adjuncts or heavy-handed hops--are as lost as the original product

Actually I once enjoyed many other styles, labeled as "red" ales, "scotch" ales, "bock", etc.--brewed in the original way, again without excessive hops to their original style. Likewise traditional Christmas/winter brews. I wasn't a fan of weizens, kolsches, etc--but I sympathize with those of you who likewise mourn rare traditional styles which seldom occupy current retail shelves.

 

Probably yes on the communication, and likewise on knowing you're a thoughtful person.

I probably did. At the most basic level, your use of the word lambic for American-made beer so soon after strongly saying lambic can only be from Belgium is what raised my eyebrows. I feel like if you were really were committed to the Belgium-only the definition then you wouldn't have used it in relation to an american beer, but you did, which left me wondering where do you the draw the line?

I feel like you are giving "yes, but no" responses. You're saying location matters but at the same time saying process matters. I do understand both are involved, but I'm asking which of those is the biggest driver in defining Lambic?

I think I can get to the answer with a hypothetical scenario: A traditional Belgian Lambic brewer moves their entire brewery- kettles, coolship, barrels, even every board, brick, vent, dust and cobweb of the building is moved, not even to America, but just a relatively short trip down the road and across the border into France where the climate is exactly the same as in Belgium. The brewery is reassembled exactly as it was and they continue brewing beer in exactly the same traditional process they have been for over hundred years prior to the move.

Is the beer Lambic? Yes or No.

 

Rauchbier
Altbier
Schwarzbier

Nowadays i have a bigger variety of IPAs and Trappists at my bottle shop than those styles.

 

Where are you located in Germany?

All of those styles are regional.

I had to drive to Belgium 22 years ago to get Trappist beers, so you've got that.

 

I thought I should look up the information regarding the legal requirements for lambic before responding to @Ranbot . What I found wasn't very clear. While there's a "traditional specialities guaranteed" (TSG) that defines it as needing to involve spontaneous fermentation and fall within a certain characteristic range, there's conflicting information out there regarding if it also has a "protected designation of origin" (PDO). I don't know the story here and if someone knows with certainty, I hope they would chime in. It's possible that my initial post on the topic contains the repetition of inaccurate information.

I didn't say that lambic can only be from Belgium and I didn't call American beer "lambic." This is the misunderstanding between us. I was only stating that Belgian lambic producers generally do not want American beers being sold as "lambic." This is an issue of product labelling in the marketplace. Personally, I think those wishes should be respected.

It seems to be easy for US drinkers to characterize HORAL as some sort of stodgy enemy, especially since Jean Van Roy (the hero in the eyes of beer geeks) has his issues with the organization. In my opinion, the Jester King situation was partially a case of an American producer being used as a pawn in the ongoing disagreement between HORAL and Jean Van Roy. That might be a controversial take on it. The thing is, people are potentially misinterpreting the attitudes of Jean Van Roy as a result. He respects (and works with) producers like Russian River and Allagash and he thinks that the world needs more spontaneously fermented beer in the market. BUT, he does not think that such beer should be called "lambic." He strongly believes that beer called "lambic" needs to be produced in the area around Brussels.

You're going to think that this is a cop out, but I assure you, it isn't. Our thought processes just aren't meshing with each other. It's not up to me to decide if that hypothetical beer is a lambic. It's up to the lambic producers. They have more right to decide than anyone else and I respect their take on it one way or another. This is my only stance on the issue. Before you think that I'm being evasive or disingenuous, I implore you to pause and consider what I'm actually saying rather than assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not.

 

While I think that is waiving responsibility for an opinion, I grant it is a valid choice to do so.

 

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!! We have a winner here folks!

 

The Belgian lambic hardliners are welcome to distinguish their product as "Brabantian lambic" or something along those lines (whatever adjective they think appropriate to distinguish their imaginary geographic boundaries). I'm sure there's a small impact from local yeast and bacteria, but, again, that's been greatly exaggerated, to the point that I bet most Belgian lambic makers couldn't tell you whether a particular well-made, traditional lambic was brewed in Belgium or the United States in a blind taste test (at least when controlled for any fruit additions; kumquat, for example, would be a tell-tale sign of American origin*). In fact, I hereby challenge Belgian lambic makers to prove their assumed superiority and notable terroir via a "Judgment of Brussels."

* I just made that up. Perhaps a Belgian kumquat lambic does exist.

I think it's absurd to say that simply because a style was invented in a place, people who still live in that place hundreds of years later get some sort of special claim to the name of the style, even when the process to create that style successfully has been replicated elsewhere. I don't see the Brits saying, "American stout?! Such a product does not exist! Stouts were invented here and therefore can be made only here! You can make something that seems like a stout, but it never will be a real 'stout,' and you better not call it a stout!"