Why does everybody hate lagers?

It didn't seem like something you would imply, thought I would ask for clarification. On that note, in my limited experience it seems like IPA and pastry stout are entry level beers in that they hit one note. Most styles in the lager category incorporate nuance and require some thought and experience to enjoy. All this waxing poetic is making me thirsty.

 

Isn't FFE7 is a Porter (ale)? The one you linked to is also an ale (wild rice double IPA).

I will stand behind what I said: "All corn and rice adjunct pale lagers should be in the same swill category..." This would include all your standard AAL beers like bud/mill/co as well as most other worldwide industrial light adjunct lagers (AAL/AL/ALL/EPL) in that same style: (stella/molson/fosters/tecate/sapporo/peroni/tuborg/ect). They are all the "White Zinfandel" of beers!

 

Clicking back through the convo it seemed clear enough to me, but I'm always happy to clarify.

About 'entry level' stuff, they come from both sides, imo; it's more about how they're designed and calculated to appeal. But still, everything has its time and place, as long as its made well enough.

 

Typed the wrong Exit Number. Good catch.

 

Just looking at a lot of the lagers, I don't get a lot of the classifications. I mean stella is just as much an industrial adjunct light lager as bud is. Yet it is under the EPL category which states they are all malt?

 

This website recently changed the BEER STYLES as noted in thread https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/beer-styles-have-finally-been-updated.586689/
in which Todd noted:

 

The EPL style category would make more sense in my opinion by simply acknowledging that brewing with adjuncts is common in some European countries whilst in others all-malt brewing is common (Denmark, for Carlsberg and Tuborg) or almost exclusively practised (Norway, Sweden, Finland). On the other hand I think it makes sense to have a distinction between American and European pale lager beers since I percieve there to be enough of a general difference to warrant it, while others might consider the difference to be small enough (or not defined enough) so as to be ignored. Acknowledging the use of adjuncts in European brewing is something I think everyone can agree on however.

 

Todd, should I suggest moving stella (and a lot of others) to the AAL category or would it be better to suggest updating the EPL category description to not imply they are all malt?

 

The focusing on adjuncts is lazy and mostly irrelevant, IMO. That is how the BA got their butt in a sling in their attempt to demonize big beer.

There are plenty of traditional beers worldwide that use adjuncts (in the strict definition, i.e. unmalted grains or other sources of sugar fermentables added to the wort). This includes both ales and lagers. As Ted Marti has stated, corn was used in the 19th century in order to replicate the taste of German lager using American-grown barley.

There is no inherent virtue in adding adjuncts to ale that magically transforms into devilry when that same adjunct is added to a lager.

Just because certain brewers of AALs and ALLs use adjuncts to lighten the flavor to near invisibility (as demanded by their customers, let's not forget) does not mean all brewers use it for that, and does not by any means mean that all lagers that use rice or corn by that use alone become "swill".

Rethinking corn’s demonized role in beer

 

Stella, Carlsberg, Primus, Tubourg, Heineken, etc. all taste very different than American adjunct lagers and all taste reasonably similar to one another. They belong grouped as they already are.

When I did an American adjunct lager blind tasting, I initially started out with Labatt Blue and Molson (the Canadian AALs, so to speak) in the tasting, but I found after I tasted both in the context of the blind tasting that they clearly did not belong and are actually more similar to Euro pale lagers than AALs.

The point is that they are distinct styles that shouldn't be merged.

 

I see what you mean, but I disagree completely. I think that helles, dortmunder, kölsch (it's an edge case, I know), and pilsner are actually the best demonstration of what lagers can be.

Those people that say all lagers are pale and tasteless are either ignorant of the variety of lagers or lazy and using "lager" to refer to AALs and Euro pale lagers. No one aware of them would actually say schwarzbiers or dunkels or rauchbiers or Märzen are flavorless or pale.

The issue is that people don't see or don't know how amazing a great helles, dortmunder, kölsch, or pilsner can be. They lump them together with AALs and Euro pale lagers, and that's why I believe they are the best showcase of what lager greatness is because they show how wrong and short-sighted that sort of belief is.

I do agree with your IPL comment, though. Both Von Trapp IPL and Jack's Abby Hoponious Union are awesome and as good as many highly-rated IPAs.

 

I would agree, there are some great lager styles. Unfortunately most lager is not great... AAL and euro lager (same basic thing) don't match up to those great styles. A cheap crap beer is a cheap beer. It doesn't matter if it's brewed in Belgium or St. Louis.

 

Permit me to apologize upfront but...

Do you truly think they are very different? If you truly do then your palate is significantly different from my palate.

Cheers!

 

It really depends on how you are defining "most"? Do you mean most lager sold, or do you mean most lager styles? If the former, even though I don't agree, I can see where you're coming from since obviously most lager sold are either AALs or EPLs; if the latter, AALs and EPLs are only 2 of the 25 lager styles listed on this site (and there are lager styles not mentioned on this site as well), so it's not correct to say that most lagers aren't great.

As a side note, I'll still posit that PBR, Hamm's, Miller High Life, Coors Banquet, and the plethora of craft AALs are great, even excellent beers, but I know you don't think that, which is fine.

 

No apology necessary. I take no offense.

Perhaps "noticeably" is more accurate to what I mean. I find the EPLs to have a richer malt character in contrast to AALs more grainy character, and as I said, I blindly learned that the Canadian lagers Molson and Labatt similarly tasted more richly malty to such a degree that they very obviously stood out in a blind lineup with AALs, which I did not expect. I'm sure I would have no difficulty picking out Stella/Heineken/Primus in a lineup with Bud, Miller, Coors, etc.

I enjoy both AALs and EPLs, by the way, so calling AALs "grainy" is not a slight against the style.

 

I can agree with the terminology of "noticeably".

The term "very" is a bridge too far IMO.

Cheers!

 

Excellent reply!

I was referring to the most lager sold and consumed, not the amount of styles. I think it's safe to say the vast majority of lagers sold to the general public are industrial light lagers. To my palate (and it seems many craft beer drinkers think the same), most of these industrial light lagers have a very similar taste profile. There are certainly differences between them but not vast differences. Could I tell the difference between a bud, stella, hamms and a pbr? Maybe, but they all taste equally bad to me. I genuinely do not like the taste of the style. I was reminded of this once again when I got the SA fall pack with the spruce lager. It was the horrible taste of a bud with more malt. The classic SA lager on the other hand is an excellent lager...

IMHO, all IIL beers are the direct opposite of craft. I think this is why the title "why does everybody hate lagers" got so much attention.

 

That makes sense to me, even if I do actually enjoy AALs. No question they (and EPLs) are the most sold by volume and also the most common. I see where you are coming from.