New Slate.com beer article

[gr8shandini]

I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...younger_can_there_really_be_a_best_beer_.html

Nothing new in here for most of us, but it's a pretty good write up for a general audience.

 

[ktblunden]

It's no accident that pretty much every beer at the top of BA's rankings is extremely limited release. The exclusivity adds a level of excitement to the experience, not to mention the bragging rights of trying something not many people have. People are likely to rate rare beers higher, sometimes even subconsciously, as a result.

That being said, three of the beers that consistently rate near the top of BA's rankings: Elder, Younger, and The Abyss, are three of my favorite beers. I'd like to say they're objectively just better beers, but part of it could be subconscious.

 

[spearko520]

thanks - that's a nice article. my tastes don't really reflect the consensus of most at large, on BA, but i think the differences between wine and beer tasting and judging are a very interesting topic. I am still amazed that slate isn't an online magazine about slate. you would think that someone with a shale pit would have had that domain locked up...

 

[McGarnigle]

It's no accident that pretty much every beer at the top of BA's rankings is extremely limited release. The exclusivity adds a level of excitement to the experience, not to mention the bragging rights of trying something not many people have.

Which sort of goes against the "democratic" argument for beer made in the Slate article. Personally, I think a lot of the people at RB and BA are guilty of trying to make beer culture more like wine culture.

 

[ktblunden]

Which sort of goes against the "democratic" argument for beer made in the Slate article. Personally, I think a lot of the people at RB and BA are guilty of trying to make beer culture more like wine culture.

That's the thing though. By definition, any sort of score aggregate is going to be "democratic" in that whatever gets rated the highest by the most people is going to be at the top. The underlying reasons for why people score beers how they do is what makes the whole thing somewhat ingenuous. Of course, when you're talking about something as subjective as beer or wine there's never going to be a concrete consensus. Everyone's taste is different and what scores high for one person might taste horrible to someone else.

 

[NickTheGreat]

Interesting read. Though I take exception with ranking beers. Because if you polled everybody in America, Bud Light would win the 'best beer' award.

 

[neko]

"All of this hubbub because the beer currently holds the No. 1 ranking at the user-driven review site BeerAdvocate.com"

I have an issue with that statement. Seems like they are saying that BA is the reason people are so crazy about Younger. If BA didn't exist would people still feel the same way? I think so.

 

[ktblunden]

"All of this hubbub because the beer currently holds the No. 1 ranking at the user-driven review site BeerAdvocate.com"

I have an issue with that statement. Seems like they are saying that BA is the reason people are so crazy about Younger. If BA didn't exist would people still feel the same way? I think so.

I think less people would know about certain beers if it weren't for BA, but I don't think the people who have had Younger would be less enthusiastic about it (provided they like DIPAs in the first place). I'd also point out that the top rankings at BA tend to rotate depending on what is available at the moment. When Abyss is available, it moves up in the rankings. Likewise with Younger and Dark Lord.

 

[McGarnigle]

Interesting read. Though I take exception with ranking beers. Because if you polled everybody in America, Bud Light would win the 'best beer' award.

Right. So would that be the most "democratic" way to do it? Have everyone vote?

I think it's kind of interesting how this plays out. BA and RB are populist when compared to the critic-heavy world of wine, but not populist enough for the masses. They don't prevent anyone from voting of course, but the culture of those sites is pretty hostile to the notion that what's popular = what's best.

I'm not saying they're wrong, but the article seems to miss this angle.

 

[bmick]

I was once sharing a beer with a distributor here in the NYC area and was telling him how, earlier, I had been to a top-rate bottle shop that had sold out of Founder's CBS in 10 minutes. He said something along the lines of "people are always looking for this life-altering experience with a certain beer, but in reality, that never happens.". I agree. I've had CBS, it's great. So is Stone's Imperial Stout, which you can get anywhere.

I ordered some Pliny the Elder bottles once, and you know what, I like Racer 5 better. Racer 5, which I can get at the supermarket. I like maltier IPAs, so that's what I prefer. In reality I really do think that BA, as well as scarcity, drive a lot of these rankings.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I think "community" beer ratings serve a very valuable purpose. It gives you a rough idea of the overall quality of the beer. If it's got a good rating, it's no guarantee you'll like it, but it should be well-brewed with no real discernable "flaws". If it's got a crap rating, it's probably got significant technical flaws.

That said, I think trying to extrapolate those ratings out to "The #1 Beer In The World" or even a "Top 100" beers is a fool's errand. Especially in a country where beer distribution is far from uniform, and special releases are limited-distribution and sometimes very selective. You can probably state that pretty much everything in the top 100 is a good beer. But you can't meaningfully state there's much difference between something in 25th spot on that list and something that's 75th.

 

[zeg]

That said, I think trying to extrapolate those ratings out to "The #1 Beer In The World" or even a "Top 100" beers is a fool's errand.

+10 to this. There is simply no such thing as the "best beer" in any sense that's meaningful to society at large. It's even hard to assign "good" vs "bad" except in truly extreme cases.

You can sort of do it for purposes of competitions, which is why they have the categories with specific definitions. Even there, it doesn't work perfectly, and a different set of judges would almost certainly produce a different outcome given the same entries.

 

[Fennis]

+10 to this. There is simply no such thing as the "best beer" in any sense that's meaningful to society at large. It's even hard to assign "good" vs "bad" except in truly extreme cases.

You can sort of do it for purposes of competitions, which is why they have the categories with specific definitions. Even there, it doesn't work perfectly, and a different set of judges would almost certainly produce a different outcome given the same entries.

Exactly. Its all subjective. Still, articles like this may get a few people to check out the beer and expand their tastes beyond the mass marketed brands. After all, if our country can prove anything, its that the general public are nothing more than sheep, mindlessly following what the media tells them and what is perceived as popular at the time.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

+10 to this. There is simply no such thing as the "best beer" in any sense that's meaningful to society at large. It's even hard to assign "good" vs "bad" except in truly extreme cases.

I disagree. As an example, I've been to countless brewpubs that make pretty poor beer. Quite a few of them who have remained in business for quite some time. Am I flat wrong that their beer is mediocre? I doubt it.

I can think of at least one example that happens to be situated in a very busy shopping center next to a movie theater, makes pretty good food, and happens to also have a full bar, good wine selection, and a couple of macro taps. Simply put, they don't need good beer to stay in business, and it shows in the quality.

A lot of breweries (or wineries, or restaurants) can stay afloat this way. If their business model sells enough inventory at a reasonable cost that allows them to cover their expenses and make a profit, they stay around. It doesn't mean they're making top-quality stuff, it means they're doing "well enough".

Sites like BA do help beer geeks to weed some of those out. I.e. if I'm looking at business travel and I see 2 brewpubs in a town, and one is consistently rated ~4/5 in their beers, and the other is rated ~3/5 in their beers, I know which one to visit. And more often than not, the ratings are correct -- the beer at the 4/5 place really is better than at the 3/5 place.

 

[zeg]

I disagree. As an example, I've been to countless brewpubs that make pretty poor beer. Quite a few of them who have remained in business for quite some time. Am I flat wrong that their beer is mediocre? I doubt it.

Many would say the same about most or all of the major beer producers in the US (actually, many wouldn't be so kind...). You may be able to get people to agree that they're not the best, but if they're selling well enough to keep the brewer in business, then obviously many people feel they're not bad.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Many would say the same about most or all of the major beer producers in the US (actually, many wouldn't be so kind...). You may be able to get people to agree that they're not the best, but if they're selling well enough to keep the brewer in business, then obviously many people feel they're not bad.

Yeah, and the largest wine producer in the US is E. & J. Gallo. And one of the largest restaurants in the US is McDonald's. It turns out that in America, bland but uniform is pretty popular.

 

[zeg]

A Lamborghini is obviously better than a Honda. It's so much faster and sexier.

A Honda is also obviously better than a Lamborghini. It won't break down and can even be driven when it's snowing.

Many beer enthusiasts go for unique, strong, subtle, and complex. Many people prefer predictable, mild, intoxicating beer. While I don't advocate absolute relativism, when it comes to taste in beer it's hard to deny it. For people who don't like hoppy, malty flavors, those strongly-flavored, complex beers just aren't attractive. (And declaring that people who don't like those flavors don't get a vote presupposes the conclusion.)

 

[spearko520]

zeg- lambos fly right through the snow.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

A Lamborghini is obviously better than a Honda. It's so much faster and sexier.

A Honda is also obviously better than a Lamborghini. It won't break down and can even be driven when it's snowing.

Many beer enthusiasts go for unique, strong, subtle, and complex. Many people prefer predictable, mild, intoxicating beer. While I don't advocate absolute relativism, when it comes to taste in beer it's hard to deny it. For people who don't like hoppy, malty flavors, those strongly-flavored, complex beers just aren't attractive. (And declaring that people who don't like those flavors don't get a vote presupposes the conclusion.)

Agreed. Top Gear rates the Lambo pretty highly. Consumer Reports rates the Honda pretty highly.

AB and MillerCoors are phenomenal brewing operations and put out technically-stellar, consistent, beer. They're Honda.

Craft Brewers don't always put out technically stellar beer but are serving a completely different market than AB and MillerCoors, so people are willing to accept a beer that has a 200mph top speed but spends a lot of time in the shop.

BeerAdvocate is like Top Gear -- the ratings are tailored to the target audience -- fellow beer geeks.

 

[zeg]

zeg- lambos fly right through the snow.

Good point. Maybe I should have specified that the Honda might stop in the snow.

Craft Brewers don't always put out technically stellar beer but are serving a completely different market than AB and MillerCoors, so people are willing to accept a beer that has a 200mph top speed but spends a lot of time in the shop.

BeerAdvocate is like Top Gear -- the ratings are tailored to the target audience -- fellow beer geeks.

Exactly. Now to find me a 200 mph beer...