| |
Main
Date: 24 Nov 2006 11:46:06
From: Walter Venables
Subject: Beer Style Question
|
I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about beer styles.
What makes the different styles what they are? For example if you do a
search for Belgium Trippel to will find hundreds of recipes with a large
variance in ingredients. What is it that makes it a Trippel? I find this for
every style I have come across. Is there a site out there that will clarify
this. I have the Brewers Association document on Beer Styles but it is
pretty vague in this respect. I find this with all of the sites and
documents I have come across. someone enlighten me or please point me in the
right direction.
--
"The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. This explains why
some people appear to be bright until they open their mouth."
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 18:26:36
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net > wrote:
> I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about
> beer styles. What makes the different styles what they are?
> .....
Beer styles are defined at
http://www.bjcp.org/styles04
The Belgian Tripel is defined at
http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C
If I were going through the efforts to make a Belgian
Tripel, I would go further and make a Belgian Dark Strong
Ale - specifically a Chimay Grande Reserve clone.
http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18E
Dick
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 06:18:24
From: Steve Jackson
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net > wrote in message
news:12meeasf7kn0t02@corp.supernews.com...
> Beer styles are defined at
> http://www.bjcp.org/styles04
>
> The Belgian Tripel is defined at
> http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C
Only for the purposes of American brewing companies. The Belgians would be
highly unlikely to agree with that definition.
-Steve
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 08:10:49
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"Steve Jackson" <see.headers@figureitout.com > wrote in message
news:Qkaah.13080$w37.9623@trnddc08...
> "Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net> wrote in message
> news:12meeasf7kn0t02@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Beer styles are defined at
>> http://www.bjcp.org/styles04
>>
>> The Belgian Tripel is defined at
>> http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C
>
> Only for the purposes of American brewing companies. The Belgians would be
> highly unlikely to agree with that definition.
I've heard the same thing. The Belgians are blessed with such good yeast
that they don't subscribe to any one description for a particular beer
style. They just make whatever tastes good (which is darn near everything).
--
Dave
"Fill your cup with whatever bitter brew you're drinking." -- Brad Paisley
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:56:55
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:18:24 GMT, <see.headers@figureitout.com > wrote:
> "Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net> wrote in message
> news:12meeasf7kn0t02@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Beer styles are defined at
>> http://www.bjcp.org/styles04
>>
>> The Belgian Tripel is defined at
>> http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C
>
> Only for the purposes of American brewing companies. The Belgians would be
> highly unlikely to agree with that definition.
The only people who really pay attention to the BJCP styles are homebrewers
(even then, not all of them). Most commercial brewers, American or not, tend
to pretty much ignore the style definitions and call their beer whatever they
want to.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 17:04:38
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>Most commercial brewers, American or not, tend to pretty much ignore the
>style definitions and call their beer whatever they want to.
I'd disagree with that. Brewers in general label their
beers in a way that will not confuse their customers. And
while they may not be as limited as judges in a homebrew
competition, the main way they do that is to use stylistic
designations. For instance, what style if Rogue's Shakespear
Stout? Bigfoot Barleywine-style Ale? New Begium Trippel?
Now, I'm sure you can come up with a lot of examples of
beer that doesn't have a stylistic designation, but that
doesn't mean brewers go at it completely at random.
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:08:26
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Joel wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>> Most commercial brewers, American or not, tend to pretty much ignore the
>> style definitions and call their beer whatever they want to.
>
> I'd disagree with that. Brewers in general label their
> beers in a way that will not confuse their customers. And
> while they may not be as limited as judges in a homebrew
> competition, the main way they do that is to use stylistic
> designations. For instance, what style if Rogue's Shakespear
> Stout? Bigfoot Barleywine-style Ale? New Begium Trippel?
What style is Michelob's "Amber Bock"?
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 17:45:17
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
>What style is Michelob's "Amber Bock"?
"Now, I'm sure you can come up with a lot of examples of
beer that doesn't have a stylistic designation, but that
doesn't mean brewers go at it completely at random."
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:55:56
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Joel wrote:
> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>> What style is Michelob's "Amber Bock"?
>
> "Now, I'm sure you can come up with a lot of examples of
> beer that doesn't have a stylistic designation, but that
> doesn't mean brewers go at it completely at random."
But Michelob's Amber Bock *does* have a stylistic designation.
Actually, I agree with you for the most part (I was just making a
funny), but I think the accuracy of the designation largely depends on
how the brewery perceives it's intended audience.
Rouge probably assumes some reasonable level of sophistication on the
part of its drinkers; Michelob... not so much. I think in the latter
cases, style designations (or the lack thereof) stem more from marketing
considerations than anything else.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:25:19
From: Marcus Räder
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"Joel" <plutchak@see.headers > skrev i meddelandet
news:ekf5r6$q4f$1@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>>Most commercial brewers, American or not, tend to pretty much
>>ignore the
>>style definitions and call their beer whatever they want to.
> I'd disagree with that. Brewers in general label their
> beers in a way that will not confuse their customers.
Eeeh... most small breweries tend to get those straight. Here in the
nordic countries, and to an even larger extent in the baltic region
and eastern europe, the beer style on the bottle has nothing to do
with the content. Here are some examples that are fairly well-used:
Porter:
- Can mean anything from a 4,5% dark lager to a 8% imperial stout
Irish ale:
- Look above
Pilsner:
- Usually just any pale lager
Pale ale:
- I've seen many bitters use this name
Doppelbock:
- Usually used for any lager, dark or light, featuring more than 6%.
Except in Germany of course
Red/amber ale/lager:
- Tend to be just darker lagers
British ale:
- Eeh...don't even get me started
This is a wide generalisation. But try countries like Poland,
Germany, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, Russia and other beer
countries and you will see that more often than not, my
generalisations are better than those used by "beer freaks", at least
when it comes to larger breweries.
M
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 12:18:52
From:
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Trippels are pretty easy. Use a good Belgian yeast strain and all pale
malts. Tripples are named (though there is some debate) because they
are generally triple the strength of a more normal beer.
Use all 2 row, or pale malt extract. Shoot for about 1.080-90, but dont
do that will all malt. Shoot for about 1.050 with malt and add corn
sugar to the boil to boost the gravity. Use promash to do the
calculations...or email me with your desired batch size and I'll do it
for you. The corn sugar will make a drier beer.
Use plenty of oxygen before you pitch the yeast for a vigorous ferment
and allow it to ferment warm...around 80 or so. This will highlight the
phenolics and esthers of the belgian yeast strain. I prefer Wyeast
3944.
Walter Venables wrote:
> I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about beer styles.
> What makes the different styles what they are? For example if you do a
> search for Belgium Trippel to will find hundreds of recipes with a large
> variance in ingredients. What is it that makes it a Trippel? I find this for
> every style I have come across. Is there a site out there that will clarify
> this. I have the Brewers Association document on Beer Styles but it is
> pretty vague in this respect. I find this with all of the sites and
> documents I have come across. someone enlighten me or please point me in the
> right direction.
>
>
>
> --
> "The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. This explains why
> some people appear to be bright until they open their mouth."
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 06:25:11
From: Steve Jackson
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"Walter Venables" <wvenables@charter.net > wrote in message
news:9BG9h.215$Th4.172@newsfe07.lga...
>I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about beer styles.
> What makes the different styles what they are?
The character of the resulting beer. And, no joke, whatever the brewer calls
it, within reason. It's like asking what makes French bread what it is?
> For example if you do a
> search for Belgium Trippel to will find hundreds of recipes with a large
> variance in ingredients. What is it that makes it a Trippel?
You've chosen a particularly problematic example. There is no definition of
tripel, and historically there was no choesive style. The name was a simple
indicator of strength, reflecting the older brewing technique of pulling
multiple worts from the same mash. If, for example, three worts would be
pulled, the first (and therefore strongest) would be called tripel.
In modern times, it tends to follow the example set by Westmalle and their
tripel. But historically (and IIRC there are some extant modern Belgian
examples) a tripel didn't have to be light-colored, relatively dry and
having a light character for its alcohol content due to the use of a
significant portion of sugar in the boil.
> I find this for
> every style I have come across.
That's because outside of competitions, some homebrewers, and some
excessively anal beer geeks, nobody is terribly concerned with nailing down
styles with absolute precision. Take porter and stout: in general, the only
things the names will tell you is to expect a dark beer with varying degrees
of roast character, and that within the same brewery the stout is likely to
be the stronger of the two. But beyond that, whatever the brewer decides to
call it is what it is.
That's not to say that the broad styles don't have meaning: an IPA that
tasted like a doppelbock would be a crap IPA. But trying to make a firm
distinction between an IPA and a pale ale is like trying to decide how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> someone enlighten me or please point me in the
> right direction.
Here's the best enlightenment I can give you: brew beer you like to drink
and that tastes good to you. That's far more important, and rewarding, than
trying to shoehorn it into what are in many cases totally arbitrary style
definitions.
-Steve
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 08:47:45
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"Steve Jackson" <see.headers@figureitout.com > wrote in message
news:braah.13135$w37.956@trnddc08...
>
> That's because outside of competitions, some homebrewers, and some
> excessively anal beer geeks, nobody is terribly concerned with nailing
> down styles with absolute precision.
Hey, a few of us resemble that remark. Well, I don't know about
"excessively", but a little anal perhaps. And for good reason, I think.
> Take porter and stout: in general, the only things the names will tell you
> is to expect a dark beer with varying degrees of roast character, and that
> within the same brewery the stout is likely to be the stronger of the two.
> But beyond that, whatever the brewer decides to call it is what it is.
I agree with you on the porter vs. stout thing. However, I can call a
feather "macaroni" and it still doesn't make it macaroni to anyone but
myself.
> That's not to say that the broad styles don't have meaning: an IPA that
> tasted like a doppelbock would be a crap IPA. But trying to make a firm
> distinction between an IPA and a pale ale is like trying to decide how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Ha! You must be talking about McEwan's IPA. Nothing like an IPA, nothing
like it at all, English or otherwise. Very little hops to speak of. But
still a splendid beer.
> Here's the best enlightenment I can give you: brew beer you like to drink
> and that tastes good to you. That's far more important, and rewarding,
> than trying to shoehorn it into what are in many cases totally arbitrary
> style definitions.
I tend to agree with you, that if it tastes good to you, then it is good,
for you. However, I do think there is a good reason for specific style
guidelines. The main reason for categorization of beers is so you can tell
an outsider with confidence, before they try it, "This is an English IPA,"
where if they're knowledgeable at all about beer, they're expecting a
certain thing... an elevated degree of floral English hops balanced by
caramel malt or whatever. If you instead handed them an American IPA, with
a blast of grapefruity, resiny hop flavor and aroma, that just ain't right.
There is a huge difference between the two, and lumping it all together and
just calling it "IPA", or even "good beer", is not fair to the beer
enthusiast. We need these definitions so we have a general sense of what
we're getting. And Lord knows, when you're spending, for example, $8,
whether it be for a 6-pack or even a single bottle of beer (and occasionally
even more than that), it sure would be nice to have a general idea in
advance of whether you'd like it or not.
And, if you're a homebrewer craving a little bit of objective feedback and
perhaps the occasional ribbon, I think you deserve to know if your beer is
good or bad. We can all make decent beer that makes ourselves happy. But
it is another thing to make a brew that someone else agrees is really good.
It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We all need a little bit
of recognition from time to time. Some of us get that feeling in other
ways, outside of brewing. Likewise, for some of us, brewing is a
significant part of our lives and it's nice to get some recognition that
we're not wasting our time giving beer away to friends, who perhaps secretly
think it tastes like crap. I would like to know if my beer tastes terrible,
and how to improve it for next time. Beer styles provide a basis of
comparison for brewers and judges alike. It's an unavoidable means of
comparison for people craving just the slightest bit of recognition. Myself
included. That's my thought on it.
--
Dave
"Fill your cup with whatever bitter brew you're drinking." -- Brad Paisley
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:04:40
From: Walter Venables
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
So basically what I am getting is that there isn't a site out there that
will shed light on this subject and all beer is the same??
It would be like if you took any style of pasta add some meat and cheese you
could call it lasagna.. Personally I don't think so. There must be some
sense to this somewhere. I guess I will just have to keep looking. Thanks to
all that have responded.
--
"The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. This explains why
some people appear to be bright until they open their mouth."
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:45:26
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables wrote:
> So basically what I am getting is that there isn't a site out there that
> will shed light on this subject and all beer is the same??
>
> It would be like if you took any style of pasta add some meat and cheese you
> could call it lasagna.. Personally I don't think so. There must be some
> sense to this somewhere. I guess I will just have to keep looking. Thanks to
> all that have responded.
>
>
I guess I'm left unsure of what you feel is lacking in the BJCP style
guidelines. I think if they were any more specific they'd be
unreasonably so. They are vague on ingredients, but this is because
there are lot's of ways to get you to the same style. They are, in other
words, *guidelines* to what might be expected in the end product rather
than a roadmap to get you there.
There are a number of good books out there that delve into the specifics
of brewing to style in greater detail. "Designing Great Beers", many of
the Classic Styles books, etc. These may be more of what you're looking for.
Beer styles also aren't really like specific dishes -- there's usually
a good bit of variance within a single style. This is particularly true
of the eclectic Belgian styles, which strongly resist pigeonholing.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:31:41
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
In rec.crafts.brewing Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net > wrote:
> So basically what I am getting is that there isn't a site out there that
> will shed light on this subject and all beer is the same??
>
> It would be like if you took any style of pasta add some meat and cheese you
> could call it lasagna.. Personally I don't think so. There must be some
> sense to this somewhere. I guess I will just have to keep looking. Thanks to
> all that have responded.
>
>
As others have stated, the BJCP is a good guideline. For ales and a
limited number of lagers Daniel's book (Designing Great Beers) is good
too - the second half is all about designing according to style
guidelines.
(Sorry - been away for a while)
-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 07:22:15
From: Steve Jackson
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"Walter Venables" <wvenables@charter.net > wrote in message
news:qM%ah.8$ME7.2@newsfe04.lga...
> So basically what I am getting is that there isn't a site out there that
> will shed light on this subject and all beer is the same??
I think you're taking the path of the discussion out to a bit of an extreme.
However, I can see where in particular what I wrote may appear to be way too
loose for what you're trying to learn. Going back to your original post, I'm
guessing that you're looking for info on what are the typical
characteristics of a certain style, and how do you replicate it in your
brewing.
I'll echo a couple other people's suggestions in a second, and add in an
additional resource or two, but before I do, I'll offer up this bit of
advice:
Still keep in mind that what's important is brewing beer that you enjoy
drinking, and that others enjoy drinking. It's really easy to get so caught
up in nailing such a tiny target that you can drive yourself crazy and lose
sight of what makes this enjoyable (although, there are some people who do
get enjoyment out of trying to hit a very precise target; if that's you, you
can safely ignore pretty much everything I'm saying on this subject). As you
read up and research various styles, pay more attention to the broad scope
of a style, rather than its finely tuned substyles. Learn about porter, what
makes it so, and don't worry so much about whether it's a robust porter or a
brown porter or a Baltic porter.
OK, some resources:
www.bjcp.org - judging criteria for beer competitions, and in my opinion a
reasonable balance between meaningful distinctions without getting too
narrow about it.
Ray Daniels' book "Designing Great Beers." When I did brew, I learned more
about how to craft a recipe than from any other source. Not just the basics,
but for various styles.
Michael Jackson's Beer Companion. FOr your purposes, I'd say this is better
than his World Guide, as the Companion is organized around styles, instead
of the World Guide's geography. He talks about the overall character, the
typical ingredients and processes, and gives good commercial examples.
(Well, mostly good; there are a few in there that frankly are way off, like
Alaskan Amber as a Düsseldorfer altbier.)
Lastly, and this is the best one,, both in terms of effectiveness as well as
enjoyment: drink. Find the good examples, and taste them. Take notes on them
if you want, and not what you get out of them. As you brew more, you'll
start to recognize those elements in your beer, start to learn how you got
those elements, and can make adjustments accordingly. And you can get to see
just how much range you can get in a given style.
-Steve
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 12:09:10
From: John Higgins
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Steve Jackson wrote:
> Path: news.easynews.com!en236!core-easynews!news-in-02.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc04.POSTED!287126f4!not-for-mail
> From: "Steve Jackson" <see.headers@figureitout.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.beer,alt.beer.home-brewing,rec.crafts.brewing
> References: <9BG9h.215$Th4.172@newsfe07.lga> <braah.13135$w37.956@trnddc08> <wOhah.10$pG6.5@newsfe04.lga> <qM%ah.8$ME7.2@newsfe04.lga>
> Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
> Lines: 56
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Message-ID: <Hyabh.13286$J5.4781@trnddc04>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:22:15 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.107.231.60
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
> X-Trace: trnddc04 1164784935 71.107.231.60 (Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:22:15 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:22:15 EST
> Xref: core-easynews alt.beer:181606 alt.beer.home-brewing:27383 rec.crafts.brewing:451218
>
> "Walter Venables" <wvenables@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:qM%ah.8$ME7.2@newsfe04.lga...
>
>> So basically what I am getting is that there isn't a site out there that
>> will shed light on this subject and all beer is the same??
>
> I think you're taking the path of the discussion out to a bit of an extreme.
>
> However, I can see where in particular what I wrote may appear to be way too
> loose for what you're trying to learn. Going back to your original post, I'm
> guessing that you're looking for info on what are the typical
> characteristics of a certain style, and how do you replicate it in your
> brewing.
>
> I'll echo a couple other people's suggestions in a second, and add in an
> additional resource or two, but before I do, I'll offer up this bit of
> advice:
>
> Still keep in mind that what's important is brewing beer that you enjoy
> drinking, and that others enjoy drinking. It's really easy to get so caught
> up in nailing such a tiny target that you can drive yourself crazy and lose
> sight of what makes this enjoyable (although, there are some people who do
> get enjoyment out of trying to hit a very precise target; if that's you, you
> can safely ignore pretty much everything I'm saying on this subject). As you
> read up and research various styles, pay more attention to the broad scope
> of a style, rather than its finely tuned substyles. Learn about porter, what
> makes it so, and don't worry so much about whether it's a robust porter or a
> brown porter or a Baltic porter.
>
> OK, some resources:
>
> www.bjcp.org - judging criteria for beer competitions, and in my opinion a
> reasonable balance between meaningful distinctions without getting too
> narrow about it.
>
> Ray Daniels' book "Designing Great Beers." When I did brew, I learned more
> about how to craft a recipe than from any other source. Not just the basics,
> but for various styles.
>
> Michael Jackson's Beer Companion. FOr your purposes, I'd say this is better
> than his World Guide, as the Companion is organized around styles, instead
> of the World Guide's geography. He talks about the overall character, the
> typical ingredients and processes, and gives good commercial examples.
> (Well, mostly good; there are a few in there that frankly are way off, like
> Alaskan Amber as a Düsseldorfer altbier.)
>
> Lastly, and this is the best one,, both in terms of effectiveness as well as
> enjoyment: drink. Find the good examples, and taste them. Take notes on them
> if you want, and not what you get out of them. As you brew more, you'll
> start to recognize those elements in your beer, start to learn how you got
> those elements, and can make adjustments accordingly. And you can get to see
> just how much range you can get in a given style.
>
> -Steve
Good words of wisdom.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 23:33:06
From: Walter Venables
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose from and I
guess not enough knowledge.
Walter
--
"The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. This explains why
some people appear to be bright until they open their mouth."
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:40:36
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net >:
>I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that
>there are so many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from
>how do you know what and how much to use to use. None of the
>sites state the type of malt, etc. that is best for a particular
>style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry about the
>starting and ending S.G.'s?
>This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose
>from and I guess not enough knowledge.
Styles are useful as categories, in the same way, for example,
that animals can be usefully grouped into mammals, reptiles,
fish, etc. Fish are fishy, reptiles are scaly, mammals are warm
and fuzzy. These are useful generalizations, in that, to know a
fish, you don't have to know all fish.
In the world of beer, there are many more possible recipes than
there are styles. But if you know a style, you know the general
characteristics of the recipes that fall under it, and what to
expect (or what to gripe about).
There is no one-to-one correspondence between recipe/technique
and style. Just as an ostrich is different from a pigeon.
Different but the same. It's a way of creating meaning -- a way
of talking, if nothing more.
As others have noted, some styles encompass widely disparate
recipes and techniques. Sometimes styles are misapplied and
abused. This doesn't make them meaningless, or obliterate their
usefulness.
cheers,
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 00:29:49
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
On 2006-11-30, Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net > wrote:
> I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
> many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
> how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
> is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
> about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
>
> This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose from and I
> guess not enough knowledge.
You need to look up actual brewing recipes. Also, some breweries give
brewing info. See Sierra Nevada Brewing.
nb
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 08:15:58
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables wrote:
> I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
> many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
> how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
> is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
> about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
>
> This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose from and I
> guess not enough knowledge.
>
I think you probably want a book with actual recipes. I like a number of
the Classic Styles books (all of which have recipes), although some of
these books are really better than others.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 14:11:49
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net > wrote:
>I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
>many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
>how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
>is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
>about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
>
>This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose from and I
>guess not enough knowledge.
There are a lot of potential ingredients. My advice is
to start simple, and use ingredients from the country the
recipe comes from. E.g., use something like a nice Maris
Otter, a touch of British crystal, East Kent Goldings, and
a British-style yeast for a bitter. Use German pilsner malt,
a touch of German light crystal, and a good lager yeast for
a German pils. Use the style guidelines for O.G., BU, and
some idea of additional ingredients that may be needed.
Start simple. Brew as often as reasonable. You'll soon
learn enough about the ingredients to get comfortable.
Also, buy a book or two. Don't just get a recipe book,
get something like Ray Daniels' _Designing Great Beers_.
You'll learn how to design your own recipes in whatever
style you like (except Belgians; for that get the recent
series of three books from the AHA, by Markowski, Hieronymus,
and Sparrow).
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 11:55:04
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net > wrote:
> I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that
> there are so many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from
> how do you know what and how much to use to use. None of the
> sites state the type of malt, etc. that is best for a particular
> style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry about the
> starting and ending S.G.'s?
>
> This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose
> from and I guess not enough knowledge.
You probably need a good recipe resource.
Dick
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 19:47:44
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:33:06 -0600, <wvenables@charter.net > wrote:
> I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
> many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
> how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
> is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
> about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
The Ray Daniels book "Designing Great Beers" would be really good for this.
That's pretty much the kind of stuff he talks about.
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 09:27:25
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Walter Venables wrote:
>
> I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
> many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
> how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
> is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
> about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
>
> This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose from and I
> guess not enough knowledge.
Get yourself some good recipe books, or Ray Daniels "Designing Great
Beers". Look through the BJCP guidelenes, and when you see a beer style
that looks interesting, go gte some of the commercial examples of it
listed in the style guidelines. Drink the beer while you read the
guidelines and try to see if you can taste what's mentioned there.
Then, look up various recipes for the style and see what components
contribute the flavors you tasted.
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 07:11:59
From: Steve Jackson
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
"David M. Taylor" <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com > wrote in message
news:wOhah.10$pG6.5@newsfe04.lga...
> I agree with you on the porter vs. stout thing. However, I can call a
> feather "macaroni" and it still doesn't make it macaroni to anyone but
> myself.
Definitely. There is certainly a point of utter inaccuracy or absurdity,
where the name has little to nothing to do with what most people will
generally conceive of what a certain name represents. Like, oh, say
Cranberry Lambic.
> I tend to agree with you, that if it tastes good to you, then it is good,
> for you. However, I do think there is a good reason for specific style
> guidelines.
It's all about context, in my opinion. Yes, there are good reasons. If
you're looking for objective evaluation, or you're running a competition,
there are enormously good reasons to define things pretty firmly. But even
then, it's important to realize that there will always be a degree of
arbitrariness, such as very fine subdivisions of popular styles so as to
avoid having one category have 200 entries instead of a more typical 50 (to
make numbers up).
I do think that beer makers, home or commercial, should find names that are
in the right neighborhood of what they made. I'd be dismayed if I bought
something labeled hefeweizen and got a copper-colored hop bomb that smacked
me upside the head with centennials, even if the beer was brewed with wheat
and was bottle conditioned. But if someone gave me something they called a
bitter and it tasted to me more like a pale ale? Eh. Those two are so close
together that there's no good dividing line. And that occurs with a lot of
the style categories that are out there.
> The main reason for categorization of beers is so you can tell an outsider
> with confidence, before they try it, "This is an English IPA," where if
> they're knowledgeable at all about beer, they're expecting a certain
> thing... an elevated degree of floral English hops balanced by caramel
> malt or whatever. If you instead handed them an American IPA, with a
> blast of grapefruity, resiny hop flavor and aroma, that just ain't right.
> There is a huge difference between the two, and lumping it all together
> and just calling it "IPA", or even "good beer", is not fair to the beer
> enthusiast.
I think you've come up with an excellent example of where context becomes
really important. If someone did go out of their way to point out that their
beer was an English IPA, and that's what I got, I might be a little
disappointed. If someone just gave me an IPA, and I found it to be one or
the other, frankly, that's fine with me. Unless I were judging or something
like that. Then the distinction matters more.
When I say just brew what's good, don't worry too much about what style it
fits, I'm talking in the context of everyday drinking, when you just want to
enjoy a good product. And I think in most cases, that's what people are
looking for commercially as well. Give me a name that gives me a reasonably
good expectation of what I'm going to get, and I'll decide from there
whether I like it or not. The real fine-tuned distinctions, and the
honest-to-god discussions I've heard from people who will say "well, it
tastes fine but I don't like it because it's not really a proper ____"
frankly gets in the way of simply appreciating a well-crafted beer.
> We need these definitions so we have a general sense of what we're
> getting. And Lord knows, when you're spending, for example, $8, whether
> it be for a 6-pack or even a single bottle of beer (and occasionally even
> more than that), it sure would be nice to have a general idea in advance
> of whether you'd like it or not.
Totally agreed. The devil's in the details of how precise one needs to get
to achieve that.
> Beer styles provide a basis of comparison for brewers and judges alike.
> It's an unavoidable means of comparison for people craving just the
> slightest bit of recognition. Myself included. That's my thought on it.
And I agree with that. Where I differ not necessarily with you, but with
those I've run into who think that these distinctions should apply in all
circumstances, is that it's necessary to define and evaluate things that
precisely all the time. I went through a stage of that when I first started
exploring good beer and when I started brewing my own. I don't know if it's
because I stopped brewing, or other factors, but most of the time now, I
just want to enjoy a good beer. And as long as you're not steering me wrong
by giving me something dramatically different than what the label says, as
long as you're giving me a good beer, I'll be happy.
-Steve
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:22:24
From: Simon Reed
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
In article <b3ubh.99$9V1.68@newsfe07.lga >, Walter Venables
<wvenables@charter.net > writes
>I guess I feel that the sites I have found to be vague is that there are so
>many types of malt, etc. out there to choose from how do you know what and
>how much to use to use. None of the sites state the type of malt, etc. that
>is best for a particular style. Do you just ignore the ingredients and worry
>about the starting and ending S.G.'s?
>
>This is where I am most confused. Too many ingredients to choose from and I
>guess not enough knowledge.
I can sympathise completely. My recommendation is to do that which many
of us have had to do: a quarter of a century of devoted, focussed and
determined quaffing of ales, beers, lagers, stouts, etc. from draught,
bottled, and cash-conditioned in pubs, bars, at home, in the homes of
others, at home and abroad.
I feel that with such intense and thorough research, I am starting to
get the hang of what names people tend to use for what drinks. I still
have a few questions, though, so my quest continues...
(And the only conclusion I have come to so far is that if it comes from
a large brewery, I probably won't enjoy it very much.)
--
Simon Reed, simon<at >s-and-j.co.uk or use the Reply-To address
So far brewed up five batches of home brew so very much a newbie.
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 09:41:56
From: Scott L
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
> What style is Michelob's "Amber Bock"?
I believe in France they call that a "Mauvais?"
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 00:07:13
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
Scott L <scott-sp02@neuralnw.com > wrote:
> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
>> What style is Michelob's "Amber Bock"?
> I believe in France they call that a "Mauvais?"
I am fairly certain that in France they call it "Eaux grasses".
Dick
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:42:22
From: alebrewer
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
> Rouge probably assumes some reasonable level of sophistication on the
> part of its drinkers; Michelob... not so much. I think in the latter
> cases, style designations (or the lack thereof) stem more from marketing
> considerations than anything else.
>
In the former as well.
To paraphrase a well-known marketing axiom:
Nobody has gone broke underestimating the sophistication of
beer-drinkers...
I would imagine the sophisitcation that Rouge is assuming is on the
part of beer judges in commercial compititions than that of its
drinkers. The mere fact that their marketing uses "if we won medals,
you'll like our beer" strategy in their advertising indicates that they
aren't all that impressed with the sophisitcation of their drinkers.
All they expect from they expect from their drinkers is their money.
ab
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:10:39
From:
Subject: Re: Beer Style Question
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
> Rouge probably assumes some reasonable level of sophistication on the
> part of its drinkers; Michelob... not so much. I think in the latter
> cases, style designations (or the lack thereof) stem more from marketing
> considerations than anything else.
What's more, if the inappropriately named beer becomes popular, it
starts to seriously alter the market's perception of what that style
really is. Case in point: Keith's India Pale Ale from Nova Scotia.
Bland, watered-down yellow stuff that never came within 100 feet of a
hop. It's actually pretty close to tasting like BudMillerCoors. Ask
John Q. Canadian what an IPA tastes like and I guarantee they'll
describe that. What's worse, if you serve a real IPA, they'll think
*you're* the one who's nuts.
|
|
