The archives indicate that on Nov. 17, 2005 I posted this:
Does it matter where beer is brewed?
Yes. At least that’s one of the premises behind Appellation Beer. Some of the others:
– It matters what the ingredients are and where they come from.
– Wines and cheeses aren’t the only products that can claim terroir.
– Beer should be considered in context. That context might be the food it’s served with. That context might be where the beer is enjoyed and the company it is shared with.
Basically a link to the “About” (or “Mission”) page. There were no comments.
There seem to be seven posts in December, and one comment (a grammatical note from Stephen Beaumont). Three posts in January, seven in February.
I might have had more common sense when I was younger.
Cheers! Here’s to six more!
Congrats!
A confession: after a few years of reading posts here, I still don’t get a sense of how you see terroir w/r/t beer. At least with wine and cheese, the place contributes to the taste: Vermont cheddar doesn’t taste like Wisconsin cheddar, which doesn’t taste like English cheddar, and with wine, location makes a huge difference. With beer, it’s not as if the ingredients all come from the same place, and I’m not even sure that in the New World, we can identify regional characteristics these days. I remember the 10 years or so when Vermont was characterized by alt-style ales, and i remember stereotypical differences between East Coast and West Coast IPAs that don’t seem to exist anymore… but beyond the sense of “house style” for a few breweries, my only “sense of place” with beer comes from memory: I associate that beer with my being in a certain place.
With the recent trend of, um, older “aft-cray” (pace, Mike!) US brewers suddenly offering more and more brews, if ever there was a sense of place — let alone actual traditional terroir — in their brews, I can’t imagine that it cuts across all the newer offerings. I’m not even sure I can get “house style” in too many these days.
And I guess, I’m not sure that you’ve kept these thoughts too upfront here in the past couple of years. You’re writing about ingredients for the books, and you document the visits here, but I’m not understanding why you believe where they come from matters. I’m positive it matters in Germany and Belgium, mostly on faith and because I trust commenter Mike on these matters, but I just don’t see it in the states — we make fantastic beer, but I get nothing regional from it, let alone true terroir. I never know where the malt comes from. I rarely know where the hops come from, or the water.
So. In the US, other than making sure the ingredients are good quality, do you still feel that it matters where they come from? And really, what constitutes terroir for beer? Local brews consumed locally is a good thing, but that doesn’t equal terroir, and I’m not sure one even get a sense of place from the taste — maybe any sense of place comes from being in the place, not in the glass. And later, from the memory of being in that place.
We’ve shamelessly stolen your premise as our premise when we started– giving you proper credit of course.
http://www.beerphxation.com/2010/07/what-is-our-beer-phxation.html
True to form, there were no comments. Or spam even.
Gee Bill, I could probably write a book answering those questions ;>)
The short answer is here: http://draftmag.com/features/the-dirt-on-terroir/
I’m inclined to consider each brewery on an individual basis. For instance, Perennial Artisan Ales is one of something like 847 brewers to open here in St. Louis this year. Phil Wymore is using local fruits and vegetables in some beers. Did I taste Peace Offering and think “Tastes like Missouri squash to me”? Nope, but it did taste like a Perennial beer. In this case I’d say I was tasting the brewer’s touch. And I happen to like that touch.
But back to defending the mission statement. To me the matter of where ingredients come from is part quality and part of simply knowing. If the brewer down the road says “I’m switching to Cascades from the Segal Ranch this year because they are friggin’ awesome” I’m good with that because he knows what he’s buying. If he’s buying Cascades on the spot market and tells me that all that matters is they contain 8.8% alpha acids then I’m going to pause.
So the long answer didn’t tell you much more than the short, did it? You’d think I’d be better at it after 6 years.
Hey, at least you got that one comment in December. That’s usually better than I get.
See, that article was the first thing that made me question whether there was even a sense of place in US beer. I found Calagione’s statement as hocus-pocus-y as what he was claiming the French were doing… but fact is, you can tell where high-end wine comes from by tasting it. And I don’t think you can do that with US beer. You might be able to guess the brewery if you have long familiarity with it… but I don’t think you can say “Wow, that’s a St. Louis beer” or “that’s a central Wisconsin beer” the way you can identify a Napa Valley cabernet as opposed to a Sonoma valley cabernet, and not confuse them with cabernet-based Bordeaux. I like how you closed the piece, giving up on the term “terroir” in favor of “sense of place”… but I still don’t taste a sense of place in US brews. And it’s not your fault, obviously, but I guess I haven’t read anything here that would convince me otherwise, and I had hoped I would. If “sense of place” means the brewery, not the geography or the city, that’s somewhat of a letdown.
US Cities and larger regions have distinctive food. And now, the country has great beer, and some of it is local due to size or choice, but unlike wine and food, very little of it suggests where it’s made. I don’t have a problem with that, but I am puzzled that it’s shaken out that way.
I hope Bill won’t be too upset, but I agree with him. The US, after the war, with the spread of television and, perhaps, film, has become quite homogenised. Former regional differences have flattened out, some, perhaps, even disappeared.
I should also point out that in Europe, beer is local frequently not because of local ingredients, but because of local culture. Zoigl would be a good example, as would Kölsch, Alt, etc.
The US micro-beer industry, by focusing on reproductions (or interpretations) more than creations, has promoted, as have several companies in the food industry, the idea that what you get there is virtually identical to what is produced overseas. It is not.
As was written several posts ago (“When Yvan de Baets speaks, I listen”), the difference between the ersatz “Belgian” pubs InBev wants to build and the real thing is that the real thing has “soul.”
That’s not only a difference in the pubs, but in the beer as well.
Bill – I think we are starting from different premises. A discussion that probably works over beer better than in exchange via comments. Like what doesn’t?
Mike – It’s also true that beer in the US is local because of local culture. And at the local level things are not as homogenized as they appear from afar.
And for Craig. I didn’t begin using Askimet to flag spam until 2007, but I don’t recall even spammers finding the site for quite a while. Yesterday Akismet trashed 2,313 spam posts.
“I might have had more common sense when I was younger.”
Hah. Based on my own experience, I highly doubt that! Besides, in the greater scheme of things — 6 years ain’t that long!
Congrats.
Stan – “It’s also true that beer in the US is local because of local culture. And at the local level things are not as homogenized as they appear from afar.”
Pubs in the US may well have local culture. Beer may have local culture in the sense it has the name of someone or something local, but beyond that, I don’t see much validity in your statement.
Beers in Europe (most, not all), have been made for generations. Beers in the US, particularly from the modern micro-breweries have been made for a few months or years.
In the future, your statement may well hold water, but I don’t see it now.
Mike,
Based on recent experience I would say that beer in Munich is more homogenized than in Indianapolis. You don’t have to have been brewing beer for a hundred years in order to make good beer.
Peter, is this based on personal experience? If so, I am quite surprised as Munich is known for a particular kind of beer. Is Indianapolis?
Like I said, recent. Last month in Munich (but after Oktoberfest), last weekend in Indianapolis. I didn’t say the beer in Munich wasn’t excellent, but I couldn’t find a pils from a Munich brewery. My favorite places were Schneider and Ayinger (both restaurants for the breweries elsewhere).
The best beer in Indianapolis was just a good. Not every one. The Germans win for consistency. Also, as I said, less homogenized than Munich.
Peter, I go to Munich several times a year. It is known for certain type of beer. Could you explain to me what local aspects influence Indianapolis beers? That is, after all, the question here. When I said that I felt US beers were more homogenised, it was a general statement. There are a couple of types of beer (IPA and stouts, for example) that seem to be available almost everywhere. I didn’t mean that only one beer is available everywhere.
“…but I couldn’t find a pils from a Munich brewery.”
Peter, seriously? In my trips to Munich I drank Pilsners from all the big breweries. Albeit, this was some time ago, but I’d hate to think they just up and stopped brewing a pretty popular style.
Mike — Munich is known for a particular kind of beer? On one particular trip I started with Helles, moved to Doppelbock, went to Frühlingsfest the next day for Maibock, had breakfast at Schneider with their wonderful Weizen, had to stop at Hofbräu for their delicious Dunkel…
But I have to agree with Peter, you don’t have to have been brewing for centuries to produce good beer.
Steve, I said Munich “is known for,” not that they only have one kind of beer.
Mike — to me, Munich is known for all of those I listed!
S.