A few weeks ago the beer blog world was afire with a heated debate about the usefulness of beer styles. The commotion was started by one of my favourite beer writers, Pete Brown, with this post and this post. This sparked some response posts at other respected blog sites (including this one and this one).To summarize the discussion, a great deal of skepticism was expressed about the value of creating official beer styles. Brown mocked the U.S. Brewers’ Association for its 133 styles, saying that such a enormous list made a joke of styles. He went further. Zythophile piled on by arguing that styles were a concept essentially invented by revered but overly loquacious beer journalism pioneer Michael Jackson.
All are thoughtful, knowledgeable and persuasive. Which at the time got me thinking about “style” in a new way. I seriously contemplated writing my own post on the subject, as part of the debate. But part of me felt that was somewhat presumptious, and besides I had a Beer 101 column due for the Sherbrooke Liquor website. So, instead of a post, I turned my thoughts into an education piece on styles.
Now, because I wanted to make it part-education, part-editorial I didn’t fully explore my thoughts on the concept of style. However, I think I get my main thrust across. In essence I believe that the 133 styles concocted by the U.S. Brewers’ Association distracts us from what styles can and should do. They should be mocked, but we should not lose the value of defined styles for structuring our conversation about beer. It does not man we must be oppressed by style guidelines or turn them into the words of the beer god. But we must recognize that they are useful tools. And like any tool they can be misused and even occasionally create injury.
I won’t try to explain the whole argument here. Read the Beer 101 piece here to get a fuller sense of what I mean. And the, after you have read it, make a comment on the website. Tell me I am full of it. Or offer to buy me a beer for writing such an insightful article (my preferred option…). Whichever. Our corner of the world won’t end the debate, but we could add some useful observations to it.
November 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM
I pretty much fall into your camp on the style debate. The “style-nazis” offend me just as much as the ones who say, “styles are meaningless.” There is a useful middle ground for styles.
I am a a nut for historical brewing information. But it also drives me nuts when the argument always comes up about modern porter/ipa/other vs historical porter/ipa/other. There are people out there who still try to judge and evaluate modern beers by their personal, arbitrary point in time definition of a style. While there will never be 100% consensus on styles, this sort of attitude seems to be little more than an attempt to further confuse the issue. Modern styles constantly evolve, and we, as brewers, tasters, and judges need to evolve and grow as well, while still being educated on the history and development of such styles.
And I always tell my fellow homebrewers, “if you think your beer is a good beer, then it is a good beer. Don’t let any judge or so-called expert tell you otherwise.” Again, it is all about finding that middle ground. Competitions and classifications are useful, but at the same time, they shouldn’t get in the way of just enjoying beer.
November 24, 2010 at 5:58 PM
I agree with your blog. Styles are essential to a *certain point*. I don’t want to just go in to a bar, order a “beer”, and then have no idea what I am about to receive. But styles are just a starting point, a guideline. As you suggested, it is a shorthand to describe “a dark ale with medium bitterness and a roasted character” vs. a “fizzy pale yellow beer with no flavor other than a hint of corn”. But at some point, does it become a bit ridiculous to try and group and classify small minutia? Does 133 categories add things that 100 wouldn’t have, or 80, or even 60?
Many beers are beyond classification. Look no further than Belgium, where no brewery really pays a whole lot of attention to style guidelines. Heck, look at my homebrews. Maybe a quarter of my beers are “Category 20” or higher, and a good portion of those are 16E. Still, it’s useful to generalize that the non-traditional flavors and processes I have used have been added to a “stout” or a “wit” so people have at least some idea of what they are getting in to before they try it.