Artist or technician?

I don't because when the beer was named, IPA and bitter were one and the same.As they have been for a very long time.As I said in my original post , these were simply names.
It's just that IPA exists in a variety of guises.At one end beers like Greene King IPA and Charles Wells' Eagle IPA , at the other end lie the West Coast beers also labelled as IPAs. There lies the problem of laying down definitions.

 

Therefore style names are useless?

 

I voted artist because in my professional life, I am a scientist, and I see brewing as a creative outlet. But in reality, both my professional science life and brewing are part technical and part creative. But when I brew, there is a little more latitude to follow creative urges, so I do.

 

No, just don't read too much into them.A Porter will be quite distinct from an IPA for example.We know what constitutes a Pale Ale.Problems arise when people start trying to micromanage things.I have no problem in realising that Greene King IPA isn't the same sort of beer as Blind Pig IPA.
Just found this quotation from Ron Pattinson's blog;
"Beer styles change because society, legislation and economic circumstances change. I haven't even started on the effect of geography.

Compiling an all-inclusive, detailed set of style guidelines is a Stalinist fantasy. Every time a brewer successfully jumps over the wire, a new style is born. Pursue that path and you end up with hundreds of beer styles. In 2006 the GABF had 69 categories. Who wants to bet when they will hit 100? Will they stop then? I doubt it."

 

14A..............................................................................................................14B

 

more haphazard technician than anything

 

No, the BJCP doesn't recognise everyday English IPA. It says this though "The term “IPA” is loosely applied in commercial English beers today, and has been (incorrectly) used in beers below 4% ABV" which is utter claptrap; it has been the result of a couple of hundred years of evolution including materials shortages and taxation problems.As it's been around since just after WW1 - not "recent"- it has as good a claim to the name as any modern interpretation.Just as present day mild isn't like the pre WW1 stuff yet nobody says that present day mild is incorrectly named.
It also says "English pale ales were derived from India Pale Ales."
Considering that IPA was for a long time called "Pale Ale prepared for India " it's difficult to see how the cart suddenly came in front of the horse.

 

I'm technical, at least with brewing. Little imagination. I save the creative stuff for cider and mead.

oh, and "Utter Claptrap" - I believe marquis just named the English IPA I'm aging. Thanks man!

 

You're still confusing the hell out of me, man. Either you believe beer styles can be succinctly described or you believe that they can't. If they can't, what's the point in attacking BJCP as being inaccurate? Inaccurate compared to what? If they can be described, what alternative system do you propose?

 

I'd prefer engineer over technician

 

A little of both.

 

When I homebrew, I take the "It's just beer" approach. I also do that with pilot batches at work. Those are my brewdays to just have fun. When I'm filling a 60 bbl fermenter though, it is very much technical. That said, even when I'm just having fun and not worrying about what happens, I still take notes. If you strike gold during a brew session, you want to be able to replicate it.

 

"everyday English IPA" ... Ahha, I think we have a new sub-catagory

apologies to rodoc1 for the threadjack

 

AS a wantabe chef and baker I tend to follow recipes exactly. still as with cooking I been known to throw things in. but I always write those down. not sure what that means as a label.

 

Point is that many people take the writings of the BJCP as a definitive arbiter of styles. They are taken to be succinct descriptions of beer styles but as I hoped I had made clear, this can't be done.BJCP guidelines are simply what characteristics they are looking for when somebody enters a beer to be judged "to style" in a homebrew competition. I have no problem with this as long as what they do isn't taken out of context.So people don't read them and think that the question of style is cut and dried.
As for accuracy, this answers itself.If you describe mild as having an OG of 1.030 to 1.038 then a large percentage of the milds in our pubs aren't true to style.Moving on to bitters , what the guidelines say doesn't match what I know about the style.That's ignoring the historical howlers which suggest that not much attention has been given to background research.

 

I would have to echo what everybody says about "both". That should have been 3rd choice.

The art is in choosing the flavor and other characteristics you want to achieve.

The technician has to be able to implement the procedure accurately and consistently in order to arrive at the intended result.

 

@bgjohnston for the win!

Cheers to bgjohnston!

 

Forget BJCP for a minute. Do you believe beers styles can be described succinctly, with relatively cut and dried descriptions?

 

No. Not unless you cut very wide and allow for overlap with other styles.Beers don't exist in compartments but in fuzzy zones.Even in existing guidelines words such as "generally" keep on appearing.

 

Doesn't the word 'generally' cut very wide and allow for overlap? If so, it sounds like (back to BJCP now) that BCJP style descriptions (or some alternative system) could be useful (beyond competitions) if revised to remove what you described as Utter Claptrap.