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

It's like looking at something with many facets, and focusing on different ones at different times. They are all there, but it's a different angle you are seeing at the time. In a beer with sufficient complexity, when the palate become accustomed to a certain flavor another one presents itself. This happens over a long duration, and in a pleasing way.

What most people here on BA refer to as 'complexity' is actually closer to 'multiplicity', or many flavors or layers at once. I've had seemingly complex Imperial Stouts that start to taste pretty much just like a heavy dose of malt after 6 ounces or so- in the end that beer is actually lacking in complexity.

A session is more like a set of music, rather than a single song. Yes, that song can really bring great enjoyment; but a set that goes in different, yet connected, directions is a greater experience.

 

Sure, as a marketing team in the US craft beer market, "session" is silly. But there are thousand of beers that are sessionable without ever mentioning it. But people here seem to be conflating these two separate things (as did the author of the article).

 

I can truly appreciate what you are addressing here, like movements in a single symphony , but I try to do that with sip by sip or multiple tastings done at different times. I just don't know that there is a beer I've had in which it takes 6 back to back to get the flavor of. Perhaps my palate isn't there yet either which i won't rule out. Would you say this character is unique to session beers or ideally would you attempt this with higher gravity offerings as well to find the true flavor, even though you'd be fighting drunkenness? If it is the case that this is needed to unravel a beer is there a case to be made that lower gravity beers are superior since you can achieve this experience without becoming drunk?

 

You and I are not on the same hymn sheet. What is coming across is that to you, flavour, ABV, body, enjoyment, are all intertwined and need to be high. Flavour in session beers is NOT "in competition" with anything - it's the whole point of them.

"Identifying what session means" is a bizarre statement. A "session" is time spent with your friends, in a pub, drinking alcohol in a manner that does not involve you staggering out and puking on your own shoes. A 'session beer" is a beer that is sympathetic to that end, i.e. one which is lower in alcohol but packed with flavour. Yes, session beers tend to be at the subtle end of the spectrum, and reveal themselves slowly over time - as others have said, the point of session beer is that they not only do this slow reveal, you enjoy the slow reveal.

I am trying to come up with a comparison that will be meaningful to you. To use a food comparison, it's like you are saying that there is no point eating anything less than a prime cut t-bone. Session beer is a hand-formed hamburger at the local restaurant - they are technically the same thing, but utterly different eating experiences, and you are denying that a hamburger can be in any way a good thing

I am beating my head on the wall here. I feel bad because there is a gulf of understanding between us, and I don't know how to bridge it, or even to help you see that it exists

 

The effects of alcohol on the palate (and noggin) can definitely be an issue with stronger beers, but I also think that well-made lower gravity beers will by their nature have some finesse to them that you only get hints of at first glance. Just the other day I was enjoying a St Bernardus 4, and lamenting that it was too expensive to really see where it wanted to take me, if that makes any sense. Parceling them out one by one definitely gave me great enjoyment, but there are delicate nuances in there, too. I kind of look at it as a 'ride' that it's nice to take from time to time.

 

I think you have hit on something here. I know the full meaning and richness of the term, because I grew up with it - but here in the US it is merely a marketing term, and it is being abused horrifically to warp it into "selling more of the stuff we make already".

 

I think you are not understanding what I mean here. I've said over and over on this threads that I am not saying session beers lack flavor. All I am saying is that I want to drink whatever tastes the best at any given moment regardless of the ABV. If the ABV is high then I have no problem drinking one, then a water and then another. I just don't need a beer in hand throughout my whole night. Session beers by their nature add another variable to the valuing of the beer that is at least to a degree in competition with flavor.

 

I would buy more session ales if they were cheaper. The problem is that the good ones cost the same price as good beer with double the abv. When I see equally tasty beers 4% and a 7% that are priced the same, my mind always leans toward the stronger beer. There are times I do prefer a weaker beer, such as after I've had a couple strong beers and want to keep drinking without getting too drunk. Session ales are best not in sessions of just themselves, but interspersed with stronger beers. They really shouldn't be labeled with the word "session" because people think they'd have to drink a bunch of them in a row which is silly.

 

That is a really interesting take on things, and like I said I just haven't encountered a beer that tastes different or better to me after the fourth or fifth in a row (apart from the buzz of course). I also have to wonder if there is a placebo that goes on with us thinking they get better after each one.

 

On the contrary. There is a very real "Pepsi Challenge" effect that demonstrates that when consuming smaller quantities (i.e. sips), people generally prefer the sweeter/more intense tasting products, whereas when consuming larger quantities, they prefer more nuanced products.

 

The problem is the truly "good ones" are almost all across the pond on cask at a pub, and I am just using the UK as an example (not trying to touch any other great beer countries). Until people actually experience this, the "session" beer argument is mute because many people have not, and have no idea. Not saying there are not "good ones" made in the States, cause there are (well at least in the 4.5 range, still not true session beers). Not saying that people should not enjoy higher ABV beers, because many are great. Just that even with this new marketing term the craft beer community in this country has seemed to adopt, they still don't hold a patch to what the real thing is. Which, apparently, many posting here have not experienced.

 

I believe that this has sufficiently been debunked.

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/subliminal/201205/why-people-choose-coke-over-pepsi

Essentially people go back to Coke not because it is somehow more nuanced but because the brand recognition sets off their pleasure centers once out of the blind test.

 

the utility of low alcohol, high flavor beer is obvious.

 

Even the article you posted initially admits that it has nothing to do with flavor - until the end when they posted something contrary to what most studies reveal. There is little evidence to support their claim that New Coke failed because of sweetness rather than because of a placebo. Slate even covers themselves by saying "but perhaps this is wrong" then cites one study claiming sweetness is key. I think the consensus is currently not in favor of that hypothesis but it is interesting. Even that article admits that to a degree:

"It’s a frustrating place for the company to be, because the Pepsi Challenge wasn’t just an ad gimmick. It really is true that blind taste tests suggest that people like it better than Coke. Yet people keep buying more Coke.One theory of this “Pepsi Paradox,”described by Lone Frank in Scientific American, is that we should take the Pepsi Challenge at face value. Coke’s victory is a triumph of branding over flavor, and a clear sign that consumer companies should invest lots of money in advertising. Researchers intrigued by the paradox have suggested that Coke’s ads actually rewire the human brain."

 

He said he drank 5 harvests over 6 hours

 

Where are the session beer ads that correlate to Coke's ads? Conflating brand loyalty with a preference for more nuanced beers that unfold more and more when drinking in quantity is pretty problematic.

 

Wait what?

 

One doesn't need ads, only the belief that it will continually taste better as time goes on. The same can of course work in the reverse as well. The stimuli implanting suggestions can vary but the results can be similar. As I said I just wonder that if you come into it believing they get better then your bias may drive you to unusual conclusions. It happens all the time. These are just considerations and not ideas I am married to.

 

Not sure if this has been said, but I see it more of a social thing.

I hang out with my friend a lot and we watch sports and drink good beer. Sometimes I've come over in the early afternoon and stayed til night. If we're drinking beer it's nice to have lower ABV choices so we don't get drunk by late afternoon.

 

They are interesting ideas, I admit. I enjoyed session beers for years without any suggestion as to why I was enjoying them...and in such larger quantities. There is a reason that the term "moreish" exists (though it is rarely used in U.S. English). In my case, it was only after someone (wholly inexperienced with the "style" of session beer) pointed it out to me that they seemed to get better the more you drank of them that the shock of recognition occurred. And as you allude to, immediate gratification can also suggest higher quality as well, so that you believe that after experiencing the initial flavor blast you will be obtaining something "better" with each sip. (In my experience, this is not the case, rather that my palate is shot after #2. Perhaps you could test it out and see if a big DIPA tastes better to you after #4 )