Will craft beer ever get back to it's roots?

I guess one man's gimmick is another man's innovation...

 

28 years, and I can't recall a "gimmick" beer: http://stoudts.com/brewery/

 

I appreciate that Sierra Nevada is also now producing beer styles of a more traditional nature: Nooner Pilsner year round, Kolsch (summer variety pack), Vienna Lager (fall variety pack), etc.

Breweries can do both: traditional styles of beer plus new 'thinking outside the box' beers.

Cheers!

 

I would argue that most breweries aren't trying to out-gimmick each other. Its likely you just perceive things to be that way because the gimmicky beers are the ones that are announced and discussed on this website. There isn't a thread every time a new porter is released..

 

I personally would not specifically use the word “gimmick’ but Stoudt’s has indeed brewed some ‘different’ beers:

· Smooth Hoperator – hoppy Doppelbock

· Stoudts Fat Dog Red Wine Barrel Aged (Winey Dog)

· Stoudt's Barrel Aged Old Abominable

· 1860 IPA

· Black Eye PA – Black IPA

Cheers!

 

Yes, I wish Sierra Nevada, Ballast Point, Green Flash, Alpine, Alesmith, Anchor and North Coast would stop making all those crazy beers and go back to making pale ales, IPAs, stouts... oh, wait.

 

You sound like my dad when he'd reminisce about the 1950's and them simpler times back then

 

wasnt craft beer in itself a gimmick when it began?

 

I am so tired of the word 'innovation' in American beer circles. Let's all pat each other on the back and go show everybody this new wheel we invented.

 

Seriously. I haven't seen any solid brewery stop producing their main lines to focus on gimmicks. I don't understand the original post at all. Are we really at the point where we need to complain about having too many good beers and options? I remember the "roots" of craft beer back in the early '90s...it meant Sam Adams was your only choice in 95% of the country. No thanks. I can tolerate 2% of beers having some weird gimmick if it means shelf after shelf of great beer at every bottle shop.

 

At the time, many beer drinkers saw it as a return to traditional brewing and beer styles in the US - the gimmick beers of the era were the "no carbohydrates" low calorie "Light" beers, high abv malt liquors and the non-traditional "flavored" beers (Pittsburgh's HopnGator, Lone Star's Lime Lager, National's Malt Duck, Hamm's Right Time, etc.)

 

We all define innovative in different ways.

However if we look in the dictionary:

1: the introduction of something new
2: a new idea, method, or device : novelty

Just off the top of my head in California:
Stone has innovated new hopping techniques
Sierra Nevada has innovated new hopping techniques
White labs is as cutting edge when it comes to yeast as it gets
Many great breweries making some of the best sour beer produced in the US (Russian River, The Bruery, SARA)

So yes, innovation is happening and your idea of what innovation is doesn't comport with reality.

 

I'll admit that I've been drawn in by my own curiosity at gimmicky brews before to change things up from more conventional styles. Now, am I always on the hunt for the "next big thing" in this realm of strangeness? Absolutely not. Its honestly been a while since my last one (Red Hot Rooster Stout).

 

Fair enough...i would imagine many of the early brewers were just doing it because it seemed fun, new and different and not because they grew up admiring trappist monks though...but you are right, gimmick is probably not the best word for it.

 

I think that the OP has to keep in mind that one person's gimmick is another person's innovation and advancement in style. There was a time when adding a ton of hops to a beer was onetime considered as a gimmick and innovators like Fritz Matag, Ken Grossman, Sam Calagione, and Greg Koch, et al., were considered crazy for hopping up their beers and making "bitter beers," yet now they're rightfully celebrated as innovators and hopping up beers is an accepted and celebrated practice. Hell, it seems to me most beers are decried when they don't have "enough" hops in them.

Another "gimmick/innovation" that is now celebrated is barrel-aging in used whiskey, bourbon, wine, sherry, port, etc. casks. I'm sure that when the first brewer decided to age a beer in one, others thought, wtf? Lout look at what that has done to the industry.

Personally, I love the fact that brewers and breweries take risks and try new things, as without it the craft beer scene would remain stagnant. The best advice to all is this: if you think a beer or what a brewery is doing is gimmicky, then just ignore it and move on to a beer and brewery that you like and don't think is gimmicky. There are people who like those "gimmicky" beers, and if not, then those beers will go away. Remember, to the majority of the world who drinks AB-InBev, Sab-Miller, Heineken, and similar beers, we're the ones drinking "gimmicky" beers.

 

???

Bottle-conditioning?

 

I don't get the question. You got to drink out of the box, son!

 

Experimental new beer flavors and brewing methods should be embraced and the really tasty ones will fall out as new hybrid styles and such. And the gimmicky marketed ones that aren't of good quality will only sell well for 1 or 2 seasons then fade away.

 

Gimmicky beers are fine. It's just annoying when they taste like shit and are yet still bottled/canned and put on shelves.

 

This is precisely why I believe Three Floyd's is great. Their year-rounds- namely Alpha King and Dreadnaught, are phenomenal, straightforward, "roots" type offerings. They do very few gimmicky things, and never at the expense of flagships that are super solid.

 

Water hops yeast malt, that's as basic as it gets.

You can twist this from an IPA to a stout.

 

if it tastes good, who gives a fu*k ???

 

The roots are fine; this flavored-everything phase is just a passing fad. Enjoy it while you can.

What I'd like to see is a return to the fundamentals, myself. I'm coming across way too much poorly made beer within the past year- and that's with me trying to be careful about it, too. God only knows the true state of affairs

 

some of those "gimmicks" make for delicious beers. At least a lot of the barrel aged ones. 2 examples off the top of my head where the I don't care for out right dislike the regular version but love the barrel version SN Bigfoot and Founders Dirty Bastard. Put those in a whiskey barrel and magic happens. Just my .02

 

My opinion is that beer is part of the food industry. We don't get all up in arms when someone makes things that seem like they don't go together, like chicken and waffles. We just think, oh that is interesting and then try it. I don't understand why there is backlash when a brewery tries this. Experimentation and innovation are good.

 

Pish. Historically, beer was adding everything in the pantry and seeing what stuck. A lot of them became very special beers reserved for special times, and holidays. That is also American brewing to a T. Because in its origin, it was a bunch of European brewers in a new land trying to figure out a new world of ingredients to use in making beer. They already knew a healthy amount of what they had access to, and that was a pantries worth.. Historically, fermentation and drinking the results of it is about sticking everything in the pantry into a vessel, or a range of vessels if you need to heat it up, boil it or whatever and letting whatever cultures are being introduced to it or already present and available to take over.

 

With all that, how is it only 77 ibu?

 

Preach it brother ! Hallalieua !

 

Dear lord you read my mind on this one. These and other PA stalwarts like Yards, Straub and Penn are holding down the fort with many solid offerings that are firmly rooted. Sure they experiment with some stuff, but the core is intact.

edit: and yeungling....

 

I don't think craft has to get back to its roots per se - the roots are still there - solid beers without undue gimmickry, readily available - but as the industry has grown, you're seeing lots of new wrinkles and twists in an effort to keep us engaged while testing for future market trends.

 

Oh, really?
Many different countries use a host of different ingredients, and cultures in their beer and always have. That's regional preference. That's economic choice.

 

I find the gimmicky stuff annoying too, but I don't see how the market would support all the breweries that are currently out there if they were all just trying to make the best traditional interpretations of each style that they could. How many pale ales do you need when you get SNPA everywhere? How many american porters do you need when you have Edmund Fitz? Breweries are just trying to make themselves stand out from the crowd and I don't fault them for it, but sometimes the line between gimmick and innovation can be pretty blurry.

 

I think there is a mix of both types of breweries in the industry, which is fine by me.

 

I think @MostlyNorwegian just overstated it a bit.

But certainly throughout the history of fermented beverages (beer, mead, cider, spirits, etc) people have used whatever locally available fermentables and seasonings/herbs were available. But now with a global marketplace, brewers can use whatever ingredients exist, they aren't hamstrung by whatever can be locally grown.

 

Wait. Are we sure it's OK to use "innovation" in this thread after Bell's sued that couple down in NC???

/sarcasm

 

But I'm curious. How do you tell the difference between when someone is adding ingredients just because they can and when they are testing out ideas, intuitions and/or hunches about what might work? Seems like someone has to be a mind reader to be able to do that.

 

Just as an FYI, if you've not read it yet you may find this is interesting:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-beer-archaeologist-17016372/

and it suggests there was, early on, indeed a lot of experimentation to see what would work, etc.

 

I might be shit on for this, but I feel if a brewery can't produce a solid pilsner, I don't respect them as much. It shows the flaws in brewing. If you are cutting corners or skimping somewhere, it'll show in a pils. That doesn't mean I don't drink from that brewery. It just tells me that the brewery knows what they are doing.

 

OK, so how do you tell then? Take DFH for example, they are accused of just "throwing in ingredients" a lot. Yet in each fo their beers there's been perfectly reasonable basis for what they've done. Which brewery would fit with having a portfolio of just "throwing in stuff?"