How do you rate the Macro Brews?!

I rate two ways - on BA I try to rate to style while in my database I rate by taste (Sucks, Meh, Ok, Good, Excellent) without paying any attention to style. Since I don't like AALs in general, they pretty much are "Sucks" in my database. Since I don't like them, chances are I'm not going to buy them to rate in BA just to tick.

 

I make it real simple I don't drink anything that is a "Macro" beer and i do not have to worry about giving it a good or bad rating. A snob yes but I really do not see the need to drink those kind of beers. If I am going to drink one beer why make it a crappy one why not sip on something good.

 

Down here in the land of Yuengling or more affectionately refered to as "Lager" I've been seeing Nargansett more often. Since I'm not a fan of "Lager" this is a nice alternative if I just want something basic but also different.

Also their Bock is the tits.

 

as for rating. . I base most ratings off my favorite beer in whatever particular style.

 

I bought a 12 pk of Genny Light, well just because. IMO most BMC all fall together it takes something special to fall out of the group in some way or form. Well Genny Light falls out of the group, a weird metallic taste, just plain awful. Most malt liquors fall out too, Steel Reserve is really foul, impossible to drink one and I only tried once, should be illegal. But the bigger BMC players Bud/Miller/Coors etc and about all one of the same, ok for what it is, not offensive in any way, mostly malt for flavor, if they use hops one couldn't tell.

 

I have thought for a while (like a lot of folks) that BA needed an explicit "enjoyment" rating. Let us rate the technical side fairly, then rate it as "wouldn't even use it to clean the drains". That way you could rate Bud Light "perfectly done for the style, but I would only use it to put out a fire"

 

I can't help but make some comparison to competitive diving, where a degree of difficulty is involved. For example, the flavor range on an AAL is pretty narrow. Likewise, there isn't a whole lot of room to move around within the style on the other characteristics either, or at least brewers don't seem to have taken it upon themselves to differentiate significantly within the style. I think the ratings reflect this implied "degree of difficulty" (for lack of a better term), as Double IPAs, Imperial Stouts, and Sours are generally rewarded with higher marks because the price for failure is higher. There is more room to screw up these styles because reviewers focus on their components so carefully. Such a system that rewards various styles with a multiplier would be impossible to implement, because the site would be attempting to layer a subjective rating system on top of another subjective rating system. It's part of how I rationalize my reviews though. Something like giving an A for effort.

 

If you had a pale ale that was 10% and 100 IBU, and you loved the flavor would you feel that it should get a high rating?
I think that people need to do there best to look at style and not just there personal taste when reviewing a beer.
http://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/637/

 

I would argue that successfully brewing an AAL beer is more difficult than the other beer styles you mention. Since an AAL beer is such a light tasting beer it is critical to have attention to the brewing process since any little miscue will be evident in the resulting beer.

Mitch Steele, the head brewer of Stone Brewing, used to brew for Anheuser-Busch. Below is an extract from an interview with Mitch Steele:

“You know, I still have a lot of respect for Budweiser. The quality focus that went into brewing that beer was enormous, and it’s really underrated as a quality brewed beer. I understand that craft beer drinkers don’t care for the beer itself. I always understood that and it’s fine, but to say it’s not brewed with quality to me is a big mistake.”

Cheers!

 

Oh I agree, and that's why I said "for a lack of better term" in my post. I typically find myself on the AAL-defender side of the fence and don't try to take anything away from the big brewers. I'm just saying that from the drinker's perspective the experience is not as rich as say, a fresh DIPA. It's far from a perfect metaphor that I've constructed, it's just more or less how I think about things while I'm rating beers.

 

I don't.

 

To style.

 

And from Shaun Hill (posted on BA before):

"I actually find myself drinking Miller High Life or Budweiser because those beers are perfectly crafted. They’re soft and there are off flavors, but they’re intentional. There are flaws that they intentionally put in the beer in order to continue the flavor profile, but those beers are really easy to drink. Not all beers are easy to drink."

 

I don't rate them. If they're the only thing around I still ain't going to bother rating them.

 

Hit the nail on the head. A 2.75 isn't bad by any means - it's one notch below "Okay" (i.e. 3.0).

I'm also quite reticent to giving a 1 to a beer. High Life don't even come close. Nor does Miller Lite in my book.

 

I don't care how well they're crafted any more, when I drink Miller/Bud or Tecate/Estrella/Coors/Stella/PBR or any other macro I get nauseated and start looking for the cheapest pale ale or ipa around. Call me a snob or whatever, but they truly gross me out these days.

 

Me too, my friend. Just an unexpected perspective from Mr. Hill.

 

I totally agree with this. If I'm trying to determine to buy a beer in a style I already know I like, I will use descriptions of the beer to help with my decision, regardless of the number associated with it. If someone says the Sorachi Ace hops are overwhelming and kill the beer, the 2 rating is explained and I can make an "educated" decision based on my like or dislike of Sorachi Ace hops.

At the very least I would hope people consider giving low straight ratings to beers they don't expect to like (regardless of style, but that also applies) that don't have many ratings (especially under 20). I would ask that you please consider giving a constructive, if brief, review to help others decide.

 

Here's my better ones on a 5-point scale:

Narragansett Lager - 2.5/5
Molson Golden - 2.0/5
Rolling Rock Extra Pale Lager - 2.0/5
Straub - 2.0/5

All the others I've had are 1.5/5 or lower.