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

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?"