Esquire: Why the "Session" Beer Trend Makes Zero Sense

Consider the possibility that the article is satire and written as a critical commentary. :-)

 

American Craft brewers are not encumbered by the BJCP, where did you get that idea? BJCP applies for for homebrewing competitions only. Your beer has to meet the stated style guidelines to win. That is called brewing to style, which I do if the beer is for competitions. Some of my beers are free form and not entered into competitions.

 

The two aren't ever mutually exclusive. There are a myriad of considerations that go into designing the drinking experience of any beer.

If I'm brewing an RIS, there are a set of parameters I'm shooting for: ABV between 8% - 11%, OG probably between 1.072 and 1.110, Final Gravity between 1.038 and 1.024, IBUs somewhere around 50, and SRM of 40+.

If I'm brewing a Bitter, there are a similar set of parameters that will yield an obviously different outcome. It's a different style of beer, so of course the flavor will be different and less intense. Because that's what the style is. In this case I'm aiming for an ABV between 3.5% - 4.5%, an OG around 1.042 and an FG around 1.012, give or take.

It's not competition, it's just desire for a different outcome. I love coffee, and I love IPAs, but I don't want to drink either all day partially because they're both profoundly palate fatiguing. Give me subtly, flavor and refreshment, please.

 

I think this is what has been bugging me with all the talk of "best flavor" etc. It's the same old (primarily) U.S. "craft" crap of treating beer as a competition. I have yet to see anything truly good that can come from it.

 

Great thread. My personal view is that we already have plenty of styles that are lower ABV and by design they are sessionable by the new, marketing driven definition, though I would put it at under 5% and not under 4%. You want hoppy -- ESB, bitter, etc are high 3% to 5% if made to style. Stout -- have a dry stout which should be under 5% if made to style. Or try one of my favorites a dark mild which pre-dates porters and comes in at a 3 to 5% ABV.

Is there a place in craft for lower ABV -- there always has been. Adding "session" to everything is more a recent marketing tactic for helping people find a lower ABV beer that do not understand there are many, many beer styles for every occasion, (http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/catdex.php).

 

Right, and I agree....but what if while you are brewing that RIS you find that for some reason it tastes wayyyyy better at 6% alcohol? I think that the best way is to keep with that path rather than change it back to a state in which it can qualify as a RIS by definition. All I am saying is that many brewers now go into this with ABV as a primary concern and flavor as a secondary in order to cash in on the session name.

 

I like session beer, just not the majority of the products labeled as such. Favorite hoppy beers these days tend to fall between 5.8 and 8.5 %, and sometimes even that is a bit much.

If a buddy and I are hanging out during the week having some brews for a sports game or something, DIPA isn't always my best bet. We might have a couple beers during a sitting, so I will use a 2L growler holding 4 pints (2 each) as my example.

If I drink a very sessionable beer like Walden or Eureka, two pints each will leave me capable of driving safely home from said game, and both of us functioning adequately the following day. If I split a big boy with any of my favorite DIPA's I start to tread the line of potential illegal intoxication behind the wheel on my trip home, and the potential risk of residual discomfort from hangover becomes much greater.

In this scenario, a session beer is not some idiotic choice, nor some effort to maximize the total volume of liquid consumed in my night. It is simply a wiser choice in my book as it does not compromise flavor or enjoyment, but rather achieves practicality in stride.

 

Interesting take. Apparently you're more cynical that me (which I find surprising).

A long time ago, there was a guy named DING who would vehemently insist a session beer must be under 4% ABV. I agree and used to put my flag in the ground over it too. I've given up on that. I abhor the idea of session IPAs, despite enjoying the flavor of Founders All Day IPA. I only mention DING, because I'm confident he'd probably feel the same way.

My vantage point is one that forgoes this new 'session' beer craze, so that's why I missed your point. It's not a new thing and both breweries and consumers need to stop acting like it is. Hell, most of Uinta's core line are right at 4% and I like a lot of their beers. Maybe they could just slap the word 'Session' on their boxes and their sales would double, when in reality it's just the beer that's always been made.

Sure there are debatable differences between session IPAs and Pale Ales, but to me, they're one in the same. One's just got more hops. That doesn't redefine a style, much less make a new one, in my opinion.

I hope we never see a brewery that tries to sell something as a Session RIS.

 

I agree that low ABV beers have been done (and done well) for a long, long time. Long before this Esquire article and long before anyone decided to utilize the term as a marketing strategy. I think there is an interesting flip side to this while thing as well. Those that get livid when saying that you want better flavor more than you want lower ABV (although saying lower ABV equates to worse flavor has not been uttered, it is a point about intent rather than outcome) claim that they love these lower offerings for their subtlety and refreshing nature. Now I agree, but enclosed within that statement is the insinuation that you NEED a lower ABV to obtain these flavors, at least if you run that statement through the same logic machine they are running the opposing side through, when in reality I have had many saisons that beat the hell out of some pilsners in those categories.

 

One of the best Barleywines I ever he'd was Young's Old Nick served on cask, and was full of flavor at 7.2%.

 

That is something I really want to try now! Sounds incredibly interesting!

 

Discontinued when Young's was merged into Charlie Wells.

 

Damn, well thanks for at least bringing its existence to my attention. I like it when brewers decide to ignore the norm and push things in a new direction. Now I'll be on the lookout for low ABV barleywines just to experience it.

 

There is Sam Smith's Imperial Stout at a whopping 7.0% that you could try.

 

That is one I actually enjoy fairly often, solid brew.

 

The point of this article was to cause controversy and get their name out. Just like all those 100 best guitar player lists.

It worked.

 

You won't find me trying to make the argument that a beer has to be under 5% to be subtle! Pretty Things Our Finest Regards is one of my favorites, and is about 11%, but there are some very subtle flavors in that barley wine.

However, that really seems to be the exception, especially when you look at the American scene, with an ever increasing amount of hops, additives and barrel treatments in beers with a much greater propensity to overwhelm rather than build and interplay.

 

Absolutely! I think that in some ways this movement has been good and in others bad. For those unfamiliar with the beer scene they see it as some yellow liquid that tastes only like....well....beer. Now that brewers are pushing to give you these in your face flavors it is attracting a new audience.

"You like chocolate? Here chocolate beer!"
"Oh you like raspberries? Boom, raspberry beer!"
"Everyone likes coffee.......Pow! 10,000 coffee beers!!!"

Now all the coffee, chocolate, raspberry lovers are becoming beer lovers and our hobby is growing. Unfortunately, lost in that mix are the beautiful interplays of subtlety that make up the beers many of us grew to love without the flavor bombs. So I see why people are defensive of these less pronounced brews, but I also see the good that has come from the growth.

 

I don't care for any of the traditional British or Scottish low ABV styles ( as in, under 4.5% or so) I have ever tried. But more to the point, I'm referring primarily to "session IPAs" versus "IPAs". Let me rephrase:

I would rather drink a full-strength IPA and alternate sips with a glass of water than drink two "Session IPAs".

 

Good for you. A lot of people would rather drink the Session IPAs and not have to take sips of water while drinking beer. Hence, Session IPA exists and does make sense whether you like it or not. Sound good?