Thread seems to have cooled down a bit. Was looking for more debate on the subject of a standardized beer style guide. Where are all the voices crying, "the greatest threat to democracy is conformity of thought?"

Good brewers don't brew styles, they brew beer. The call for "STANDARDIZED guidelines" (not only for beer, but for any conceivable product of this world) invariably comes from squareheaded people with a neurotic need to put everything in boxes. No doubt you'll all have a great future as government bureaucrats.

In Reply To #22 Sig, your posting is a bit more like what I had in mind when I asked for a debate. Thank you for your candor. While a real debate is usually more objective in nature, I'll assume you're doing your best to explain your dissenting point of view. I'll try not take your comments personally. "Good brewers don't brew styles, they brew beer." I couldn't agree more, Sig! The beer style taxonomy is not meant to constrict brewers in any way. The problems it solves are more related to consumers' needs, marketing, and competition judging. It's about being clear on what a label means. It's also about recognizing when something is truly, significantly new. Perhaps that kind of clarity and objectivity is not as valuable to you and others as I would have thought. Fair enough, that's what I am trying to learn from my friends in here. Devil's advocates, thank you for your help. Surely, Sigmund, you do not mean that no conceivable product of this world should be held to a standard. Did the tires you bought for your car fit, and did they wear uniformly? Have you taken any asprin lately? Are you sure it was really asprin? How can you be sure? Do you trust your doctor's training? The case for standardization is clear in matters of public safety. And what about beer? Did your last bottle of Norway's Ringnes Lettol taste the same as the first one did? If so, why? If not, how do you feel about that? Ha! Me asking a guy named Sigmund how something makes him feel! Squareheadedly yours, Foamy

In Reply To #23 This reminds me of that Monty Python skit where the guy walks into the office asking for a debate and mistakedly walks into the abuse room. Be careful what you ask for Foam! Me, I'm a style guy only to the extent that when a brewer slaps a style on the label, it had better be that style. E.g., McEwans IPA.

In Reply To #4 I do my best to do the following: Rate a beer as to style, then add comments as to whether or not I loved/hated this beer. I may be the worst at it, but try my best to explain why I give scores outside the norm for beers. What I mean by that is, I try to rate a beer by the style, in my limited vocabulary and understanding of such, then follow up by a comment such as, "I'd drink this again", "It's one I enjoy" etc. You get my drift? I suppose my best example would be of Rogue's Old Crustacean Barleywine. Worst barleywine I've ever tried, and the worst Rogue product I've ever tried. I still tried to rate it as to class, then give an overall view of it.

In Reply To #24 Brett, thanks for covering my 6. I appreciate the concern and support. I think the taxonomy I have been working on will be helpful. I'm hoping the people who try to talk me out of it will explain their objections in a rational way. Actually, the McEwans IPA example is a great one to cite. It may well be a superior beer, I'm sure the brewer likes it and many people would say it's their favorite. Perceived quality aside, it is still somehow "wrong" to sell it as an IPA. The people who bought it as an IPA had every right to expect it to look and taste like an IPA. Judges would have a right to rate it poorly or disqualify it. I would love to get the stats on McEwans IPA and compare OG, FG, AA, %abv, IBU, & SRM to the IPA style range and see how it compares. But get this: the BJCP and the WBC style guides don't agree in the IPA ranges! So, how do we figure this out?!

In Reply To #23 Before anyone take anything I say too personal, I should add that I was a squareheaded lower level government bureaucrat myself for many years (got out in time - I think), and I probably have a neurotic disposition that may compete with anyone here. The urge to put everything in boxes (at least now and then) is probably natural for most of us, but that does not necessarily mean that it is RIGHT to do so in every aspect of life. Yes, there are good reasons to have some standardization of medicine and technology like e.g. car tyres - even if real progress in medicine and technology is made when those standards and categories are superceded. But I don't want a music police (was that last hit rock, pop or soul - or possibly country rock or even country; or did it have too many elements of classical music - or even jazz and blues? - "gee, I need to know, to find out if I really like the song"). And I want no literature police (was Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness a short novel or a long short-story?) - and I definitely don't want a beer police! I have caught myself writing stuff like "I really think this is more of a Munich dunkel than a Vienna", but DOES IT MATTER??!! Did I actually LIKE the beer? (that matters for me!); WHY did I like it, what did it smell and taste like? (might be of interest to other beer geeks). Maybe the brewer himself didn't give a f**k about the "dunkel or Vienna" question, he just wanted to make a fairly malty brew that would appeal (and sell!) to a certain group of consumers that like something maltier than the standard pilsener or pale lager? Maybe he deliberately did not state the "style" on the label at all, maybe he just wanted to call his beer "Bill's Beer" or something? Should he be FORCED to name a style on the label - if so, by consumer organisations or by a government agency? Isn't the governments' required mentioning of ABV and ingredients - for 90% or so of European beers: Malts, hops, yeast (filtered off) and water - enough for the consumer? Sure, there are some very good beers that fit very nicely into some classical style definition (deliberately or not), but there are also many fine ales that e.g. are not easy to put into one of the styles bitter, pale ale, blonde ale, brown ale, amber ale, golden ale or British IPA, but have some characteristics from several or even ALL of these styles. Does that detract from your pleasure of drinking the beer? Can you allow yourself to actually LIKE the beer, even if it's hard to categorize? And what if an English brewery make a beer they label IPA, and you think it's actually a mighty fine bitter? IS it a bad IPA, or a good bitter? Does that question keep you sleepless at night?

In Reply To #27 You have certainly provided a lot to think about, Sigmund. I find this exchange fascinating. The balance between control and freedom is a delicate one. I thank you for your thoughtful input and I encourage others on the sideline to follow your lead. Let's try to develop the various points of view more completely. I hope I do not present as a guy who must be told the official style of the music, literature, or beer before I can decide whether I like it! Personal preferences are clearly subjective. I have a good feel for what I like, but what I like today is vastly different from my preferences of only a few years ago. I reserve the right to change my mind. If I like it and you don't, our opinions are both equally valid. Likewise, I have no interest in harnessing creativity. An artist's creative motives are best left a mystery. Few artists are also successful critics. You really struck a nerve with the notion that a brewer might be forced to name a style on his beer's label. I was only going for clarity. However, enforcement is a logical extention, and you have given me pause. It sounds revolting. As I think about it more, it comes down to this: Which is worse from a consumer's point of view, having a clear and enforceable definition of styles, or the complete opposite? I do not believe that standards would squelch a brewer's creativity. But I do believe the complete freedom from naming conventions would soon result in confusion (the McEwans IPA case) and ultimately, when styles are meaningless, utter chaos. What keeps me awake at night is neither whether I like something, nor guessing the artist's creative intent. But I do wonder how to adequately communicate what I like and why I like it to others. For this, a common frame of reference is needed. A shared lexicon is also critical--what does "malty" mean? Are the degrees of maltiness commonly understood? How do we get past lame descriptions, such as "I liked it"? What I call the Taxonomy of Beer Styles is meant to provide such a needed framework. Like the taxonomy of living things, it can change frequently. However, at any given time, it is a clear and unambiguous snapshot of the shared understanding about how to classify the world of beer. Once the taxons of such a framework are set, you could predict the actual style of any given beer sample. More importantly, from a discovery standpoint, you could recognize when a new brew is significantly different from established norms. On one hand, I think many brewers would be encouraged to master a style. This is conformity. On the other, and many more brewers would set out to blaze their own new style. Some of these new start-ups would succeed, depending on the market's reaction. This is essentially what happened with the Imperial IPA style. The most unpalatable part to me of creating a single, shared taxonomy is that somehow, we'd have to arbitrate between all the various competition style guides out there. I do not have a clear vision for how that part would work. Your thoughts?

In Reply To #27,28 Early on in this thread I mentioed the use of broad brush for bier catagories, i still do. Pilsner from Pilsen- period. Kolsch from Cologne, Belgians from Belgei, etc. Outside of this -Pils-any "any bier emulating the style of Pilsen not brewed in the city of Pilsen". Then the style biers; such as Vienna, Kolsch Style, etc. Using minimum gravities based on old world standards would prevent abominations like Shiners from being called bock. Broad brush, no box. In the forest , there are any number of biers that have no style on the label. They are just plain bier. All are lagers, or mostly all lager, some have two yeast in them, but fall inbetween the normal named bier catagories. Folks in my neck of the woods drink, have a tradition of do so, but don't sit around taking notes or sniffing at the glass. The biers change all the time in realation to the season and who is the brew meister, some with style names, some without. Areas produce similar products because that is what the locals drink. The other fact we are dealing with is in the USA the brewing tradition is very young. What? Three hundred years overall and micro brews since 1979? Micros are still in the novelty catagory in my opinion; we are discovering ourselves as a brewing nation. A good time to be alive if you like bier! On the continent, all the exotics are someones local and viewed as such. No big deal, just great bier, but hey there is this little place down the road...The big insult here is if you don't like the next villages bier you always fall back on "the well of the brewery is in the graveyard". I heard that in Flanders about St. Bernardus... Reply #29- The local biers will most likely never leave the area, or have not for generations. The vast majority of brews in B/W and Bayern are like my locals, just that. There are always larger outfits in an area brewing to the "standards" (and making more geld I might ad) but the small operations are my choice in most cases. The bier drinkers curse: Suggest a bier to someone, and when they drink it, the one they get is a stinker!

This message was edited by Brad Pear at 8/4/2004 5:43:56 PM.