Now Stan has jumped into the fray on the usefulness of “style.” It reminds me of all the little words we use to convey something other than the personal experience: expert, connoisseur, judge. There is so often a downside to any of these things. Consider what Hemingway said of “aficionado“:
The aficionado, or lover of the bullfight, may be said, broadly, then, to be one who has this sense of the tragedy and ritual of the fight so that the minor aspects are not important except as they relate to the whole. Either you have this or you have not, just as, without implying any comparison, you have or have not an ear for music. Without an ear for music the principle impression of an auditor at a symphony concert might be of the motions of the players of the double bass, just as the spectator at the bullfight might remember only the obvious grotesqueness of a picador…
So, there are two things in there. First, unless you see the whole context, including the negative, you do not see the thing in itself. Second, not everyone will see the whole thing: “either you have this or you have not.” I accept this. But I do not accept where it is taken to lead, which are inevitably forms of exclusive, excluding superior capacity. The thing lumped together as “expertise.”
The thing is… I have never met one of these craft beer experts. I’ve met lots of interesting and pleasant and hardworking people but never an expert. It is perhaps natural that people would want to lead or be seen to lead given that beer is such an immersive topic. It reaches into you like good radio, consistently generates conviviality, pervades our extended northern culture and powers a good segment of the economy. Yet it is also a fraud in ways that experts might not be comfortable acknowledging. It can dope us, distract us and place us behind the wheel of a car. It can affect your health and too often costs too much. It engenders the flimflam of celebrity and may be making suckers of us all.
For me, an idea like “style” is great if it serves your particular hobby interest in good beer. So, if you like to judge and enjoyment of being a judge is your entry to the subject, well, go ahead and have 2,000 “styles” for all I care. But if you are an impressionist and want to record your personal perceptions of experience, that is just as valuable and style is pretty much irrelevant. After all, a poem is as useful as the textbook. If you want to play at aligning flavours in solids and fluids and call it “pairing” feel free but you will notice that actual taste of the beer and food is so particular that “style” quickly starts being a bit thick for practical purposes. And finally but perhaps most tellingly, if you wish to reach into history, you will find that “style” is a moving target and in the end a disappointment.
As Stan has noted, all this talk of style is one of the most interesting examples of the beery discourse. A evening seminar was given this week in England and the English-speaking beery world was set abuzz. Somewhat antithetically, too. Because if there were such things as fixed styles, experts and the rest the seminar would have been a lecture and no one would have needed to discuss it further.
[Original comments…]
Gary Gillman – October 21, 2010 6:58 PM
Well. Yes and no. Yes that there are probably too many self-appointed experts, and an element of egotism enters into any attempt to organize the wonderful and crazy world of beer (not that that alone is bad, without it, Michael Jackson would not have existed and we would not (I believe) be here today). No in the sense that, as an American poster on Pete’s recent threads noted, I want to know what I’m ordering before I get it, and a detailed style scheme assists that.
Item: recently I ordered an “Irish-style russet ale” in a beer beer. It came smoked. I said to the server, the beer menu doesn’t say it is smoked. He said, well, it’s listed under the specialty section, and if it wasn’t smoked, we’d list it as an amber style. Okay, I see.
Gary
Alan – October 21, 2010 8:18 PM
“I want to know what I’m ordering before I get it, and a detailed style scheme assists that.”
I don’t really agree as I have had too many experiences of thin stouts, bland Canadian IPAs and crap faux lambics to trust the label. With the cacophony of craft beers out there, I find too many of the styles referenced on the labels are about as useful as “tastes cold”.
Bruce Ticknor – October 21, 2010 9:56 PM
http://www.beertaster.ca
I tend to agree with Alan on this one, Try a Kieth’s IPA and then tell me about styles. What the label says has absolutely nothing to do with the fluid in the container. IPA is one of my favourite styles only I really don’t know what that is. To me it is the flavour I remember from Labbatt’s IPA of the 1960’s but that was almost certainly not what an original IPA tasted like. I couldn’t know what an original tasted like because (despite what my kids think) I wasn’t there.
I do wish I had one of Stan’s ‘wayback machines’ because I would love to find out what some of these beers I read about really did taste like.
Style is a moving target and so is meaningful only in the moment.
Tim – October 21, 2010 11:14 PM
http://strngbrew.blogspot.com/
Alan, I was going to argue in line with Gary that style, for my purposes, serves as a basic communication between brewer and drinker of how beer tastes. Your response made me consider the citrusy stouts and sweet saisons I’ve drank. Now, I’d say the best way to find out what a beer (or drink) tastes like is to ask your server or shop staff. Their earnest knowledge and willingness to proffer a sample is important.
Alan – October 21, 2010 11:27 PM
Yes, that is a good point if you have a system that allows for shopkeepers to hand out samples – unlike Canada for the most part.
But when I read “sweet saison” you gakked me right into another dimension where the memory of Three Floyd’s Rabbid Rabbit lurks. Perfect example of a beer bought on reputation as well as the love of the style which was a total and utter let down. A beer that gives all the reason we need to create the International Style Conformity Confirmation Commission.
Gary Gillman – October 22, 2010 3:28 PM
Good point about samples. Some places give them and some don’t though, and for some reason, I don’t like asking for them. It’s not logical really but I can’t explain why.
In the end, it’s up to the (craft) producers and retailers. I’m simply saying that it is in their interest to give as much information as possible on their products. Some consumers will glaze over it, others though will gain valuable information. It’s always a balance. None of us likes the “beer bore”, a type inhabits the areas behind the bar of some beer pubs. It is especially galling when they tell you wrong stuff, such as any kind of beer really should be cloudy to taste best and no one drank clear beer until glass containers became common.
Gary
Martyn Cornell – October 23, 2010 6:05 AM
http://zythophile@wordpress.com
In fact, as I point out here, we’ve only been talking about “beer styles” for a comparatively short time: https://zythophile.co.uk/2010/10/23/michael-jackson-and-the-invention-of-beer-style/