I uninvite myself to brew days... Do you?

[LandoLincoln]

Thousands and thousands of pages of prose were written praising men and women of the day (in the context of lust and passion), even though, for the most part, they had atrocious hygiene by today's standards, and generally smelled bad and were hairier (including the women, if you know what I mean).

Do you think William Shakespeare could not appreciate the superior aesthetics of Kate Upton versus Marie Antoinette?

They praised it because it was the best they had, at the time. They also thought baroque music was the peak of musical entertainment, and oil paint smeared on some canvas was the top of the art world. That doesn't mean they wouldn't soil their frilly britches if they ever saw an Ansel Adams print or watched "Avatar" in 3D.

Maybe we're getting a little off-topic here. I could be wrong.

 

[JBOGAN]

Bud Light or dysentery, damn you Bud Light you finally pulled me in.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

... improvements in beer were made because of the desire for a better profit.

ftfy

Which is still the case even in this century, and will always be the case for centuries to come.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Thousands and thousands of pages of prose were written praising men and women of the day (in the context of lust and passion), even though, for the most part, they had atrocious hygiene by today's standards, and generally smelled bad and were hairier (including the women, if you know what I mean).

Do you think William Shakespeare could not appreciate the superior aesthetics of Kate Upton versus Marie Antoinette?

They praised it because it was the best they had, at the time. They also thought baroque music was the peak of musical entertainment, and oil paint smeared on some canvas was the top of the art world. That doesn't mean they wouldn't soil their frilly britches if they ever saw an Ansel Adams print or watched "Avatar" in 3D.

hygeine by todays standard is driven hard by employment and supported by air conditioning.

I suspect William shakespear would have thought Kate Upton were ill and disfigured given the general shape of women historically.

Oil paint smeared on some canvas still is the top of the art world, billions of dollars in trade proves it.

None of this proves that beer was subpar and drank only because they were no better options.

 

[kombat]

If all you had to choose from was nasty brown water that would literally make you sick and possibly kill you, bud light would taste like the heaven.

I nominate this as BMC's next big advertising campaign slogan.

 

[DSorenson]

Originally Posted by DSorenson
... improvements in beer were made because of the desire for a better profit.

ftfy

Which is still the case even in this century, and will always be the case for centuries to come.

I think I meant product?

 

[lowtones84]

Although there are definitely some advances in modern brewing that are great, I think the past has a lot to teach us. Why are craft brewers starting to turn back to multi-strain cultures, culturing local wild yeasts, aging in oak barrels, etc.? To me even very well done modern craft brews can be a little one dimensional and lose their interest after a few sips, and it leaves me hunting down Fantome or traditional lambic and geuze, or my homebrewed gruit. Of course there are some great advances in brewing technology, but it's dangerous to discount what past artists/craftpersons have done as inferior (in any art/craft).

ANYHOW, that's not what this thread is about I usually don't brew with my others, but those friends that do brew talk brewing with me. I always offer advice if they are asking for it, or explain how I do something and the logic behind it. Like others have said, it's all about presentation. Perhaps just see if they're willing to change one thing during brew-day that you suggest. And if not, who cares? They're friends, get in on their craziness

 

[kombat]

hygeine by todays standard is driven hard by employment and supported by air conditioning.

Fact is, it's improved. The reason is irrelevant. A 1700's man would think a 2014 woman looked and smelled like an angel.

I suspect William shakespear would have thought Kate Upton were ill and disfigured given the general shape of women historically.

Social conventions of the time equated a little chubbiness with wealth. However, outright obesity was still considered unattractive, and athletic builds were held in even higher esteem.

Oil paint smeared on some canvas still is the top of the art world, billions of dollars in trade proves it.

Surely you're not serious, are you? Are James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Michael Bay drawing millions of people into art galleries for hundred-million-dollar opening weekends of their latest art exhibitions? Are there 57 channels on my TV devoted to the art world? (Is there even one?) There are multiple channels devoted to music and movies, but nothing on traditional painting. And you seriously wrote that it's the "top of the art world?" How many millions of people tuned in to watch the Grammies? The Oscars? The Emmys? Heck, even the Tony awards? Now how many people give 2 sh*ts about an art auction?

"Top of the art world." OK.

None of this proves that beer was subpar and drank only because they were no better options.

I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

 

[bob1852]

But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

It doesn't mean they would've either.

Some people still prefer a fried chicken foot to "perfect" fois gras....

 

[DSorenson]

fight! fight! fight! fight!... *reaches for homebrew*

 

[Hopinista]

I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

If ancient beer tasted anything like DFH Midas Touch, it was gross.

 

[rekoob]

This might be a little off topic but no, I don't uninvite myself.
back to... umm... whatever it is we were talking about.

 

[ericbw]

I would concede to say that palate have changed to meet with more varieties of beer through evolutionary changes in barley, hops, and yeast strain selectivity. But to convey that 1000 years ago palates were so unrefined that they could tolerate **** is absurd. I have no doubt that advances in brewing have taken beer to places that people were not able to go 1000 year ago but based solely on the numerous literary praises it was still something people yearned for.

Hops may not have been used in beer for "thousands" of years. It might only be hundreds of years, or a thousand-ish. So it would make sense that beer from 400BC was surely less hoppy, and maybe less aromatic than it is today. So it had to be different, but would a drinker from that time be disgusted by the hop aroma of an American IPA? Would William Blake or William Shakespeare be turned off by something as run of the mill as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? But hops are more prominent now.

Crystal malt is a relatively new invention, isn't it? And an ale without crystal... that means no Irish reds, no pales. So crystal malt makes beer different and probably "better."

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Fact is, it's improved. The reason is irrelevant. A 1700's man would think a 2014 woman looked and smelled like an angel.



Social conventions of the time equated a little chubbiness with wealth. However, outright obesity was still considered unattractive, and athletic builds were held in even higher esteem.



Surely you're not serious, are you? Are James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Michael Bay drawing millions of people into art galleries for hundred-million-dollar opening weekends of their latest art exhibitions? Are there 57 channels on my TV devoted to the art world? (Is there even one?) There are multiple channels devoted to music and movies, but nothing on traditional painting. And you seriously wrote that it's the "top of the art world?" How many millions of people tuned in to watch the Grammies? The Oscars? The Emmys? Heck, even the Tony awards? Now how many people give 2 sh*ts about an art auction?

"Top of the art world." OK.



I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

1700's vs 2014, highly subjective. Any man who thinks Lady GaGa looks like an angel needs to see an optician.

However, the limits of outright obesity were much higher than today while the minima of what was considered athletic were lower.

James Cameron and Steven Speilberg aren't drawing individuals in to spend millions on singular peices. No, they are spending millions to bring people in at $12 a peice. And in no way will Steven Speilbergs E.T. command the same resale in another 50 years as would a Mona Lisa.

So, what in inherent to wine that would cause it be any better than beer, specifically ale? Nothing. The fermentation process would have been the same.

 

[balrog]

Looks like it wouldn't take much of a nudge to shift this over to parenting styles

I myself always welcome advice in this new hobby of mine--I use much that I hear but not necessarily all. If it's offered to be helpful, it is appreciated for its intent.

 

[Tarks]

I get what the OP is saying, I'm very much like this. It's a part of me that I want to change about myself. In situations like this I take a few deep breaths, a few swigs of beer and try to sit back and enjoy the moment. Try to give some constructive advise.

 

[hunter_le five]

Maybe we're getting a little off-topic here. I could be wrong.

Dead wrong. The OP was off topic.... retroactively.... from the start.... or something. Kombat, et al, have merely attempted to get this thread back on track.... I think.

 

[TimmyWit]

So, let me get this straight... OP is a time traveler with a great appreciation for art who was invited to a brew day with our ancestors. He got offended by their processes and went on a rant about head space and mash ratio. Our ancestors didn't know what he was talking about and frankly didn't give a crap. They told him "RDWHAHB" but OP didn't get the RDW part so he left the party and returned to 2014 to start this thread.

To answer the question, no I wouldn't uninvite myself. A brew day is a great excuse to hang out with your buddies and drink beer no matter how much you disagree with their processes.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Hops may not have been used in beer for "thousands" of years. It might only be hundreds of years, or a thousand-ish. So it would make sense that beer from 400BC was surely less hoppy, and maybe less aromatic than it is today. So it had to be different, but would a drinker from that time be disgusted by the hop aroma of an American IPA? Would William Blake or William Shakespeare be turned off by something as run of the mill as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? But hops are more prominent now.

Crystal malt is a relatively new invention, isn't it? And an ale without crystal... that means no Irish reds, no pales. So crystal malt makes beer different and probably "better."

There are records of the use of hops, in beer, since 1079. As an aside, I have had a Heather ale and thought it was fantastic.

The patented Crystal malt is relatively new. The documented origin of Porter was in 1700's. So, it is reasonable to expect that while they may not have been calling it Crystal, or Black Patent, or Brown ... there was knowledge of the effect that roasting malt had on beer flavor.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

If ancient beer tasted anything like DFH Midas Touch, it was gross.

And if 90% of what DFH makes is a prime example of todays improvements, then my opinion is that we have regressed.

 

[bob1852]

The patented Crystal malt is relatively new. The documented origin of Porter was in 1700's. So, it is reasonable to expect that while they may not have been calling it Crystal, or Black Patent, or Brown ... there was knowledge of the effect that roasting malt had on beer flavor.

English mild's are even older than that.


When I brew those, I drink some of them extremely young, room temp, and uncarbed. It's refreshing.


Also, BCJP is likely adding a historical category to their style revisions.


Even as a hop lover, I personally find it EAC-ish to suggest some peasants would prefer a cold SNPA to a warm, un-bubbled mild; given the choice.

 

[dobe12]

Fact is, it's improved. The reason is irrelevant. A 1700's man would think a 2014 woman looked and smelled like an angel.



Social conventions of the time equated a little chubbiness with wealth. However, outright obesity was still considered unattractive, and athletic builds were held in even higher esteem.



Surely you're not serious, are you? Are James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Michael Bay drawing millions of people into art galleries for hundred-million-dollar opening weekends of their latest art exhibitions? Are there 57 channels on my TV devoted to the art world? (Is there even one?) There are multiple channels devoted to music and movies, but nothing on traditional painting. And you seriously wrote that it's the "top of the art world?" How many millions of people tuned in to watch the Grammies? The Oscars? The Emmys? Heck, even the Tony awards? Now how many people give 2 sh*ts about an art auction?

"Top of the art world." OK.



I didn't say there were no better options (for example, maybe wine was pretty good back then). I'm simply saying the very best beer from 800 AD would be vastly, vastly inferior in flavour to virtually any beer produced in 2014. But since drinking 2014 beer was not an option in 800 AD, and 800 AD beer was all they ever knew, they developed a palate for the flavour and maybe even thought it was pretty good. But that doesn't mean that - given the chance - they wouldn't have found today's beer far superior.

Boy, you sure do like making assumptions. And the fact that you know what people would and wouldn't PREFER all throughout history form 800AD through the present.... man that's something special

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Even as a hop lover, I personally find it EAC-ish to suggest some peasants would prefer a cold SNPA to a warm, un-bubbled mild; given the choice.

I personally find it EAC'ish to suggest that modern improvements make "our" beer superior to theirs when AB/Inbev is the leading authority on brewing related technological advancements and precision and yet I have yet to see any affirmative poetic prose written about Budweiser Platinum.

 

[dobe12]

Even as a hop lover, I personally find it EAC-ish to suggest some peasants would prefer a cold SNPA to a warm, un-bubbled mild; given the choice.

Excellent point... to the completely derailed portion of this thread. Wait, what was the point of this thread anyway? Oh, who cares? It's keeping me busy on a slow work day

 

[kh54s10]

Was it?

Are you sure about that?

How can we ever really know?

Do you think beer brewed in 1000 AD tasted every bit as good as, say, a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale does?

I agree that they made "beer," but I personally believe that modern beer tastes immeasurably better than whatever warm, murky, sour fusel/phenol/DMS/acetaldehyde bombs blacksmiths drank at the end of a long day of shoeing horses. There was simply nothing better available to them at the time. I think brewing has progressed immensely in the intervening centuries.

It is proven that beer was brewed long before any real knowledge of why things happen.

I agree that modern beer is most likely a lot better. But if it tasted horrible do you think they would have continued?

Another thought, in some cultures they won't eat meat if it hasn't, what we would say, started to rot for a few days.....

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Was it?

Are you sure about that?

How can we ever really know?

Do you think beer brewed in 1000 AD tasted every bit as good as, say, a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale does?

I agree that they made "beer," but I personally believe that modern beer tastes immeasurably better than whatever warm, murky, sour fusel/phenol/DMS/acetaldehyde bombs blacksmiths drank at the end of a long day of shoeing horses. There was simply nothing better available to them at the time. I think brewing has progressed immensely in the intervening centuries.

It is proven that beer was brewed long before any real knowledge of why things happen.

I agree that modern beer is most likely a lot better. But if it tasted horrible do you think they would have continued?

Another thought, in some cultures they won't eat meat if it hasn't, what we would say, started to rot for a few days.....

Albertson's calls that "cold aged" and sells it brown at a premium.

 

[kh54s10]

Albertson's calls that "cold aged" and sells it brown at a premium.

True but cold aged and sitting on a rock covered with flies for a few days is a bit different.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

True but cold aged and sitting on a rock covered with flies for a few days is a bit different.

Absolutely, the latter would be marketed as Organic Aged and only available at Whole Foods.

 

[Flipadelphia]

Sounds like the OP can't just enjoy time with buddies. What they do isn't your problem. Relax and take a chill pill, and all that good stuff. Unless you're just a very opinionated person and can't stand when people don't know how you feel. If so carry on!

 

[bleme]

Nope. I enjoy attending others' brew days. If they do something I wouldn't, I might offer advice. If they don't take it, I just give them a little Edmund Fitzgerald and move on.

I wasn't familiar with this slang so I had to look it up:

Edmund Fitzgerald
Another term for anal sex usually while drunk.

Interesting....

 

[Hopinista]

This thread just went to a scary place

 

[TobyG]

But since they didn't know any better back then because none of these advances in brewing had happened yet, they wouldn't know what they were drinking was subpar compared to our current standards. Hence, I'm sure they enjoyed what they were drinking.

If all you had to choose from was nasty brown water that would literally make you sick and possibly kill you, bud light would taste like the heaven.

How many of those advances are the result of trying to replicate styles that were brewed due to their natural environment 'limitations', though? Brewers back then focused on a local style that was most likely the result of trial and error to find what their natural source ingredients and environment worked best with.

 

[evrose]

Bud Light or dysentery, damn you Bud Light you finally pulled me in.

Not me. I'd still risk dysentery.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

English mild's are even older than that.


When I brew those, I drink some of them extremely young, room temp, and uncarbed. It's refreshing.


Also, BCJP is likely adding a historical category to their style revisions.


Even as a hop lover, I personally find it EAC-ish to suggest some peasants would prefer a cold SNPA to a warm, un-bubbled mild; given the choice.

Too wordy, maybe paint that picture in oil on canvas or just use a CAMRA.

 

[ericbw]

There are records of the use of hops, in beer, since 1079. As an aside, I have had a Heather ale and thought it was fantastic.

The patented Crystal malt is relatively new. The documented origin of Porter was in 1700's. So, it is reasonable to expect that while they may not have been calling it Crystal, or Black Patent, or Brown ... there was knowledge of the effect that roasting malt had on beer flavor.

Right, 1079 is not thousands of years. That's the first recorded mention, but assume it was going on a while before that. Still not thousandS of years.

Roasting and crystal are different, too. So the beers of 1400 were different than 1850, and different than today. People have not been making beer *the same way* for thousands of years.

 

[hunter_le five]

Right, 1079 is not thousands of years....Still not thousandS of years....People have not been making beer *the same way* for thousands of years.

0.935 thousands of years?

 

[bob1852]

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Right, 1079 is not thousands of years. That's the first recorded mention, but assume it was going on a while before that. Still not thousandS of years.

Roasting and crystal are different, too. So the beers of 1400 were different than 1850, and different than today. People have not been making beer *the same way* for thousands of years.

Weiheinstephan traces it's abbey brewery back to the 700's WITH a hop garden.So, okay, not precisely thousands just at least 1.2 of them.

Riiight. They squoze the beer right out of the grain into glass and skipped all those technological steps in between.

 

[dobe12]

Right, 1079 is not thousands of years. That's the first recorded mention, but assume it was going on a while before that. Still not thousandS of years.

Roasting and crystal are different, too. So the beers of 1400 were different than 1850, and different than today. People have not been making beer *the same way* for thousands of years.

Ok everyone... let's make sure we double check all of our facts. The thread police are on the scene.

 

[Flipadelphia]

I wouldn't want to be friends with someone who is such a prude as to know-it-all the entire time he's at my brewday, and then actually un-invite himself because of how bothered he is. Wow. You must be a real treat to hang out with OP.