“You guys speak as if a beer can be separated from it’s brewery. Sure, if you’re talking about blind taste testings where the point is to evaluate taste and aroma qualities, that’s one thing. But no one actually drinks beer that way (except a few of us nerds). No, we live in an interconnected world. Whether we call it “great” or “fine” or “magically delicious” beer — the best ones are far more than what’s in the glass.”

No. I really disagree at a deep level with that, because I approach beer from different angles. I’m not talking about blind taste tests. I’m talking about last weekend, when I took a sixtel of bock to my bro-in-law’s house, and we drank it. We didn’t take notes on it, we didn’t drink it blind (or deaf, for that matter), we just stood around in his kitchen and out in his driveway (freezing-ass cold and two feet of snow, grilling dinner), and drank it. And it was great.

At that point, which I would say is a prime and classic beer-drinking moment — four guys, drinking delish beer for no other reason than that they wanted to drink some beer and talk about their lives — it didn’t matter one bit where the beer came from, or the business practices of the brewer, or the sustainability of the barley farm. All that mattered was how the beer tasted.

There ARE other times when all the rest of it matters, when I’m drinking from a different angle, or when I’m making a purchase decision. I’ll make those decisions on food: organic, artisanal producer, non-chain market. But I won’t buy inferior products just because they’re organic/artisanal/non-chain. I’m buying for taste. Is it good? Yeah? I’ll buy it.

When the beer’s in the glass…the beer’s the thing. I make the same point to number nerds: when I’m drinking beer, I don’t have the IBU, the Lovibond, the ABV, the AA, the carbonation levels. All I have is the old Mark I Palate and Nose, For the Assistance Of. I don’t know the rest of it, and when the beer’s in front of me, I don’t care. I’m getting tucked into it.

Beer is separated from its brewery every time a truckload of it rolls out of the brewery gates, whether it’s headed down the road to the local tap, or headed across the country, or headed to the harbor to cross the ocean. Beer is deracinated every time someone drinks one without knowing the brewery ‘story.’ I love the story, and I buy beer because of it sometimes. I believe how the beer is made, and how the ingredients are grown, is important. But the taste is paramount. Otherwise, I think you’re veering close to marketing.

I would be happy to discuss this over a pint, though! E-mail me, and I’ll take a look at the calendar, see if we can swing something. Good to see you coming to town.

I’ll write more about this once I finish reading his book.

Chris, as part of my manifesto I put great premium on place (where’s it brewed, where the ingredients come from, etc.) but if we’re going to call something a great beer it has to be a great beer.

That’s why Lew’s statement is flat-out brilliant.

I don’t disagree, Chris, but average beer does the same thing for most people. As Pete Brown would argue in his anti-preciousness way, most people do not drink craft beer and still get the social benefit of beer. When I go to my brother-in-law’s place and sit around a garage with his Laker buck a bottle beer and his buddies, it is social and a place apart from the day-to-day. As a result, I have to understand what craft beer really adds to that equation for me. It adds something but I have to watch out carefully that it does not add snobbism. Worshipping at the alter of craft brewers than craft beer is veering a bit too much down that path.

You guys speak as if a beer can be separated from it’s brewery. Sure, if you’re talking about blind taste testings where the point is to evaluate taste and aroma qualities, that’s one thing. But no one actually drinks beer that way (except a few of us nerds).

No, we live in an interconnected world. Whether we call it “great” or “fine” or “magically delicious” beer — the best ones are far more than what’s in the glass.

The better beer movement (or whatever we want to call it) is about excellent brewing quality, to be sure. But it is also about the value of process and experience, and the importance of taking beer back from the corporations that have boiled it down to a meaningless commodity.

Great beer is about community and socialization, about experiencing something that elevates us from the mundane, and that connects us with each other and the universe (sheesh, I really sound like a beer zealot now).

By the way, Lew, I’ll be up in southeastern PA next weekend visiting Victory and Sly Fox and maybe Iron Hill. Aren’t you in that neck of the woods? Care to join me for a beer? I’ll also be leading a tasting at Tria in Philly that Thursday, called Beer Is Divine (proof that I am a beer zealot!). Email me through my blog if you want to hook up.

Cheers,
Chris

The scale a single A-B plant operates it is mind-boggling, and they have 12. But they also have 50% of the market.

Considerably less will do. Craft beer – and we’ll use the BA definition for the moment – isn’t 4% of the market. And it’s national. Just 1,400 breweries instead of one.

I should point out we piddling with a term here that holds little sway with most of the people who drink “craft beer.” The are more likely to recognize “microbrews” on a sign, be it a retail store or a pub advertising it is different that the spot down the road.

As Lew points out these terms are compromised. But the search for better ones has been going on for a dozen years 9or 20) and nobody has submitted a better one.

Interesting that the definition of craft beer put forward by the Brewers Association restricts “craft beer” to being that produced by “craft brewers” small, independent, traditional). In the UK, where the debate tends to centre around “real ale” more than anything else (admittedly not the same thing as craft beer at all), CAMRA do not make reference to the type of brewer in their definition.

The Brewers Association is very restrictive at first glance, protectionist almost, but maybe when one looks at the bigger picture perhaps it makes sense. In the US context (vast market), would it be true to say that a truly national-scale brewery will be on such a large scale as to preclude small-batch, specialist brewing?

But on the other hand of course, a macrobrewer that owns and runs a micro operation will it be able to do so. I am thinking of the Museum Brewery in Burton, owned by Molson-Coors but producing some great beers (No.1 Barley Wine, P2 Imperial Stout, Worthington White Shield). I note that Museum wouldn’t fit the definition of a craft brewer – it isn’t independent.

Along with the release of the statistics (the 11.7% growth) all BA members got a template so they could send a press release to their local paper with their own production figures, suggesting they are part of a national trend.

Of course what they should be talking about is how good their beer is (which can include the context of the brewpub, if that is what they are).

As to using the word “great” I must admit I had fallen in to the trap of saying “better beer” until listening to Greg Koch speak last June at the National Homebrewers Conference. His point was you shouldn’t settle for anything less than great, nor should you let your friends.

And – while I am at it – what is wrong with taking on the word “fine” or “great”. Why can’t we all shout “I hunt out great beer” or “I drink fine ales and lagers.” I am a fan of those who make it well and spit (pittouie!) on those who make crap. Because I am a fan (not a guru or a consultant or a brewer or a distributor or anything else) I have the luxury of (not to mention much recreation in) wallowing in my subjectivity on this point. But anything else is mere puffery, the sort of claptrap that is good for promotional statistics that ultimately tells me nothing.