Describing taste in words is funny business but making the effort is worthwhile as it provides you with a mechanism through which you can record your experiences with food and drink, and especially craft foods like real ale. We each take in the esters, phenols and other organic elements and recreate their interconnection in our own minds as we sip, sometimes discovering what the brewer intended and sometimes finding out new nuances never expected. Then you use your words to frame your experience. Do it often enough and you develop your own descriptors that make sense for your experience.
So it is inordinately shocking, then, to learn about what may be the worst idea in the craft beer movement I have ever heard of – a standardized system of beer description not unironically called Cyclops:
Cyclops, the new scheme launched today at the Great British Beer Festival at Earls Court in London, has the backing of 14 real ale breweries. Under the scheme, the brewers have agreed to follow a standardised template on all promotional material, describing the style, smell, look and taste of their beers. Bitterness and sweetness – the two main measures used to describe real ale’s characteristics – will also now be scored from one to five.
Cyclops follows a pilot scheme introduced by Leicester brewer Everards, which simplified the language used to describe real ales on promotional materials so customers knew exactly what to expect. A Campaign for Real Ale spokesman said: “Real ale is an incredibly complex drink with an enormous range of styles and tastes. Cyclops will demystify real ale so drinkers will know what a beer will look, smell and taste like before they part with their cash at the bar.”
This is tragic. And it is stunning that CAMRA supports such a thing. It is important at this moment in time that the most famous Cyclops, Homer’s Polyphemus, was blinded for life by drinking strong wine and ate people. This is hardly the making of a good brand. But even when he had one good eye he saw things…like he was born with one eye in the middle of his forehead – as in without particularly strong ability to see things from other perspectives. Plus, as man eating giant shepherds who get tricked a lot, they sort of fit the images of a rural rube caricature, kinda like in the satirical play by Euripides.¹
And that is sort of what the program takes the craft beer lover for in presuming to tell you how to taste – it takes you for an ignorant oaf. It will create one recommended way to look at things and a snobby attitude to those who find their own way. Reject such mecho-branding systematic standards that will homogenize response patterns and trust yourself. If you think a beer tastes like the armpit Polyphemus after a long night in the cave (if you know what I mean) while the brewer tells you something like “it is a 5 (bitter), 3 (waterhardness), 3 (maltiness), 2 (mouthfeel) and 4 (overall) pale ale” then you just trust yourself and know that is likely tastes like that armpit.
¹…which would have been funnier if, instead of saying he was called “No man” thus leading to lots of punning hi-jinks that confused the big old dope, Odysseus had actually called himself “Norman” which would have led to a lot less confusion and likely the eating of Odysseus in the first few scenes thus saving thousands of undergrads the misery of figuring the whole thing out.
[Original comments…]
eric braun – August 2, 2006 9:54 AM
http://www.mlive.com/food/homegrowntomatoes
This is one case where the craft brewing industry should take a lesson from wine folks.
There’s a great deal of backlash against all the ratings systems and a handful of people who tend to set the taste standards. It makes for the tyranny of a few tastebuds.
Narrowing down flavor profiles to a finite group of taste categories only corrals the creative efforts of brewers who will in turn begin to brew to the tastes of these standards.
It also corrals the creative writing of reviewers. There’s just no need for it.
Man, this is what happens when people start forming committees.
Greg Clow – August 2, 2006 10:10 AM
http://beerbeatsbites.blogspot.com/
Considering that I have rated over 1400 beers at Rate Beer using numerical scales, it would probably be hypocritical of me to be completely negative about this idea. In fact, I don’t have a big issue with brewers presenting their beer inside some sort of framework that describes certain aspects of the brew.
But I do think the idea of having it be a “standardised template” is flawed, as such schemes rarely do a good job when it comes to including things that fall outside of expected norms. Like, what if one of the brewers comes up with something like a barrel-aged smoked barley-wine with blueberries and peppermint, or something freakass like that. How will this fancy “template” deal with such a beast?
Alan – August 2, 2006 10:53 AM
I think these are wise comments – and not only because you agree with me. There is a great book by (I think Andrew Barr) called Wine Snobbery in which the relationship between authorized standardization description and elitism is made. It is a mechanism to make something rarified, so that only an expert can state if something is really fine. As a result it is anti-craft and anti-individual. If Greg thinks that a certain beer has notes of sweatsock and raspberry (as La Choulette Framboise could possibly be described) he should write that and then I should go out and see if I agree or if I would put it another way by rearranging the flavour elements.
Alan – August 2, 2006 11:10 AM
The Telegraph from London giggles slightly over the prospect of the beer snob resulting from standardized language.
Thomas – August 3, 2006 2:48 PM
http://geistbear.blogware.com
I tend to think standardization practices, especially on such a simple scale, are pure BS. I say that as someone studying for the BJCP exam. I heard an interview with a BJCP Judge that beers cannot get a top score(in this case a 50), but if an Anchor Steam or as Pilsner Urquell can’t get a 50 and they define the style I question the utility of any such practice. But this same judge did make one point of validity, the judging scale provides a common vocabulary base to discuss beer.
DJ Portland Ore – August 12, 2006 3:53 PM
I absolutely love the idea of this standardized system. It gives the dorks something to do while it give us real beer drinkers one more thing to totally ignore as we go on to enjoy our favourite frosty cold adult beverage, as always. 🙂
Alan – August 13, 2006 11:03 AM
Here is an interesting critique of the standard numerical rating system in wine from today’s NYT
Paul – August 21, 2006 12:23 PM
Burton snatch?? Can’t imagine how that can be a good thing inside a pint of beer.
Personally I don’t mind the idea of a standardized numerical rating of sweetness based on a quantitative measurement – but nothing else please.
Alan – August 21, 2006 1:56 PM
Burton Bridge porter may be in the LCBO soon as a seasonal if I remember correctly. You will have a chance to experience the snatch which is a way of describing a rather harsh tang.