I'm reading this book right now.
And while it's great, there's a chapter about beer in England, and he makes a distinction between "ale" and "beer". Essentially, he speaks of ale as the older drink just brewed essentially with grains, and "beer" a more modern (read: 14th century) invention from the continent of ale that has hops added to it.
Apparently, there was a lot of suspicion of "beer" when it first landed in England, and it was seen as more "high brow". It almost seems as though there was a kind of "craft beer" revolution in London around the 15th century with people going nuts, lining up, and stocking up on casks (sound familiar?) when a new Beer would come to a tavern or ale house.
I've never heard of this distinction before, but he's got some historical quotations that back up people preference for either "beer" or "ale"?
Anyone else ever heard of this very old distinction before?
Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
"Ale" vs. "Beer"?
-
JeffPorter
- Beer Superstar
- Posts: 2552
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:39 am
- Location: Brampton, ON
"Ale" vs. "Beer"?
"What can you say about Pabst Blue Ribbon that Dennis Hopper hasn’t screamed in the middle of an ether binge?" - Jordan St. John
-
mintjellie
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:22 am
- Location: Barrie, Ontario
-
markaberrant
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:28 pm
- Location: Regina, SK
YesJeffPorter wrote: Anyone else ever heard of this very old distinction before?
-
mintjellie
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:22 am
- Location: Barrie, Ontario
http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2010/09 ... d-old-ale/
Regular readers will remember that I’ve already talked here about how “ale” continued to be a different, less hopped drink to “beer”, not just a synonym, right through to at least the end of the 19th century, and here about how “ale” sold mild, that is, freshly brewed, gradually became one of the most popular drinks, especially among the working classes, in 19th century Britain, ousting porter from top slot.
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Thanks gents.
There are two issues: the word origins (etymology) of the terms ale and beer, and the types of drinks these terms commonly denoted for hundreds of years in England. These are separate issues.
On the etymology point, Martyn Cornell has written extensively and a quick search of his Zythophile website will bring up his and other peoples' theories. The term beer is actually quite old in England and was used (at times) even before the era of hopped beer. There is a theory that it originally referred to cider, and indeed a weak cider, called "bere" (accent grave on first e), is still known in Normandy. I won't go into all this because it is rather academic and not as interesting as the second point.
The second point is that ale clearly originally meant unhopped malt liquor. The ale up until the 1500's was of this character, it might have been spiced and perhaps occasionally with hops but there was no tradition of boiling a mash of barley malt with hops. Then the Flemings came to England, the weavers and hop farmers, and by the 1500's hopped ale - which they called beer - became more common. It was called initially a "Dutch drink" and feared in part because the hop was thought poisonous, a "pernicious weed" and the like. The Flemings used the term "bier", also the German word, for this bitter malt drink and it caught on in England to mean hopped ale. Thus for a time the two rival forms of malt beverage co-existed.
After a time, all ale became hopped. Why? Because hopping helped preserve it and possibly also people liked or acquired the taste. What was feared and shunned became the norm, over time.
But still for centuries, beer was more hopped than ale. Thus, the ancient memory of ale as an unhopped drink endured in the form of this less hopped version of beer. Thus, ale was predominantly sweet and lightly bitter; beer tended to stress the bitterness and flavour of the much larger quantity of hops used in its production.
Into the 1800's, the old, lesser-hopped ale was called "mild ale" or "old ale". If drunk new it was mild. This was the least hopped version. If drunk aged it was "old". Old ale used more hops than mild ale, to preserve it longer again. But neither version used as many hops, in the same strength class, as beer, the drink derived from the Flemings.
This beer was either porter, amber beer, small (weak) beer, October or March beer (strong, brewed to be drunk in subsequent seasons), or (confusingly) pale ale including finally IPA. All pale ale was beer and hopped and stored as such, not ale. Why was it called pale ale? Probably because of the euphony of the words, they sounded better in that form than "pale beer" although many brewers called their pale ale just that or "bitter beer", later shortened in the pub to bitter.
So, on the one side, mild ale and old ale; on the other side, porter and stout, pale ale, and amber beer. (Brown ale intermittently appears as well; it was an ale, and Newcastle Brown Ale, say, is an heir of the ale tradition. Fuller's London Pride is a pale ale, a beer or "bitter", and descends from the Dutch tradition of hopping malt beverage).
By the end of the 1800's, most beer ceased to be long stored. The hop rate of porter, amber beer and pale ale started to drop commensurately, so that the distinction between beer and ale started to fade. As one 1800's observer wrote, if the difference could be defined at all it was only in the extremes. Thus, fresh mild ale was more sweet than bitter, and a very bitter, long stored India pale ale or stout was more bitter/sharp than sweet. Apart from that, it became up for grabs so to speak.
Still, there is a vestige of the distinction still existing in England. A "pint of mild" in the pub is a descendant of the old unhopped ale and is still sweeter than a pale ale (i.e. "bitter") in the same alcohol band.
The difference was never one of fermentation; both forms of malt beverage were always top-fermented. Only when lager came in did bottom-fermentation take root in England. Ales and beers continued to be top-fermented and still are in England and here if not of the lager class.
Gary
There are two issues: the word origins (etymology) of the terms ale and beer, and the types of drinks these terms commonly denoted for hundreds of years in England. These are separate issues.
On the etymology point, Martyn Cornell has written extensively and a quick search of his Zythophile website will bring up his and other peoples' theories. The term beer is actually quite old in England and was used (at times) even before the era of hopped beer. There is a theory that it originally referred to cider, and indeed a weak cider, called "bere" (accent grave on first e), is still known in Normandy. I won't go into all this because it is rather academic and not as interesting as the second point.
The second point is that ale clearly originally meant unhopped malt liquor. The ale up until the 1500's was of this character, it might have been spiced and perhaps occasionally with hops but there was no tradition of boiling a mash of barley malt with hops. Then the Flemings came to England, the weavers and hop farmers, and by the 1500's hopped ale - which they called beer - became more common. It was called initially a "Dutch drink" and feared in part because the hop was thought poisonous, a "pernicious weed" and the like. The Flemings used the term "bier", also the German word, for this bitter malt drink and it caught on in England to mean hopped ale. Thus for a time the two rival forms of malt beverage co-existed.
After a time, all ale became hopped. Why? Because hopping helped preserve it and possibly also people liked or acquired the taste. What was feared and shunned became the norm, over time.
But still for centuries, beer was more hopped than ale. Thus, the ancient memory of ale as an unhopped drink endured in the form of this less hopped version of beer. Thus, ale was predominantly sweet and lightly bitter; beer tended to stress the bitterness and flavour of the much larger quantity of hops used in its production.
Into the 1800's, the old, lesser-hopped ale was called "mild ale" or "old ale". If drunk new it was mild. This was the least hopped version. If drunk aged it was "old". Old ale used more hops than mild ale, to preserve it longer again. But neither version used as many hops, in the same strength class, as beer, the drink derived from the Flemings.
This beer was either porter, amber beer, small (weak) beer, October or March beer (strong, brewed to be drunk in subsequent seasons), or (confusingly) pale ale including finally IPA. All pale ale was beer and hopped and stored as such, not ale. Why was it called pale ale? Probably because of the euphony of the words, they sounded better in that form than "pale beer" although many brewers called their pale ale just that or "bitter beer", later shortened in the pub to bitter.
So, on the one side, mild ale and old ale; on the other side, porter and stout, pale ale, and amber beer. (Brown ale intermittently appears as well; it was an ale, and Newcastle Brown Ale, say, is an heir of the ale tradition. Fuller's London Pride is a pale ale, a beer or "bitter", and descends from the Dutch tradition of hopping malt beverage).
By the end of the 1800's, most beer ceased to be long stored. The hop rate of porter, amber beer and pale ale started to drop commensurately, so that the distinction between beer and ale started to fade. As one 1800's observer wrote, if the difference could be defined at all it was only in the extremes. Thus, fresh mild ale was more sweet than bitter, and a very bitter, long stored India pale ale or stout was more bitter/sharp than sweet. Apart from that, it became up for grabs so to speak.
Still, there is a vestige of the distinction still existing in England. A "pint of mild" in the pub is a descendant of the old unhopped ale and is still sweeter than a pale ale (i.e. "bitter") in the same alcohol band.
The difference was never one of fermentation; both forms of malt beverage were always top-fermented. Only when lager came in did bottom-fermentation take root in England. Ales and beers continued to be top-fermented and still are in England and here if not of the lager class.
Gary
Gary Gillman
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
I'd like to add that an argument can be made that all mild and bitter in England today, setting aside perhaps certain APA styles, are, in the old terminology, ale not beer. Why? Because neither is likely hopped anywhere near to what the beer class was hopped at in the classic era of beer. Even Fuller's London Pride, say, uses less hops today than a mild ale did in the mid-1800's. Another factor is, few beers are stored unrefrigerated for any length of time (setting aside bottle-conditioned beers, but those are different IMO), and lengthy warm-conditioning was a hallmark of beer originally except for small beer perhaps. Yes, pale ales vs. mild ales probably on average still show different attenuation rates, but as between various brewers I doubt any consistency can be shown in a way to say mild ale is still fundamentally different from pale ale.
This is why it is difficult to say a vestigial difference truly endures between ales and beers. Many pale ales have a sweet character, which is how mild ale was defined in the 1800's. I would argue the old "beer" really doesn't exist anymore except sometimes for a few products made by craft brewers, and these would be extremely hoppy beers.
This is why, say, when Mark said he made an Imperial Stout with 200 IBUs plus, I said fantastic, that is a beer of the old type, a real beer, it would show possibly what a very bittered, stored strong porter was like.
It is very difficult of course to know what beer really tasted like in the 1800's. The only way to try is to make them as best one can following the old recipes and hopefully we can get an idea of what was mild ale, old ale, pale ale and porter. I tasted an 1830 recreation of a mild ale in Quebec at L'Albion that was delicious but you could certainly taste the hops. I've had similar beers that were called, as made by other brewers, pale ales or DIPAs.
So in the end today I think really the distinction between ale and beer doesn't exist any longer, or only in a relative way (say, as between the mild ale and pale ale of the same brewer); I am speaking of course of beers made to modern recipes and not comparisons of beers that attempt a historical recreation. If you re-created an 1830 IPA, I am sure it would taste not just way more bitter than that 1830-style mild ale, but have a different character - possibly with brett or lactic influence - than the other.
This is why the historical recreations are of such interest to me, they can help demarcate style lines that today are used in a different sense or to make different beers, essentially.
Gary
P.S. I know that some beers today are barrel-aged, and to the extent very bitter beers are stored long in this way, those are mid-1800's style beers, probably. But these are relatively few and I am talking about the typical output of the typical craft brewery.
This is why it is difficult to say a vestigial difference truly endures between ales and beers. Many pale ales have a sweet character, which is how mild ale was defined in the 1800's. I would argue the old "beer" really doesn't exist anymore except sometimes for a few products made by craft brewers, and these would be extremely hoppy beers.
This is why, say, when Mark said he made an Imperial Stout with 200 IBUs plus, I said fantastic, that is a beer of the old type, a real beer, it would show possibly what a very bittered, stored strong porter was like.
It is very difficult of course to know what beer really tasted like in the 1800's. The only way to try is to make them as best one can following the old recipes and hopefully we can get an idea of what was mild ale, old ale, pale ale and porter. I tasted an 1830 recreation of a mild ale in Quebec at L'Albion that was delicious but you could certainly taste the hops. I've had similar beers that were called, as made by other brewers, pale ales or DIPAs.
So in the end today I think really the distinction between ale and beer doesn't exist any longer, or only in a relative way (say, as between the mild ale and pale ale of the same brewer); I am speaking of course of beers made to modern recipes and not comparisons of beers that attempt a historical recreation. If you re-created an 1830 IPA, I am sure it would taste not just way more bitter than that 1830-style mild ale, but have a different character - possibly with brett or lactic influence - than the other.
This is why the historical recreations are of such interest to me, they can help demarcate style lines that today are used in a different sense or to make different beers, essentially.
Gary
P.S. I know that some beers today are barrel-aged, and to the extent very bitter beers are stored long in this way, those are mid-1800's style beers, probably. But these are relatively few and I am talking about the typical output of the typical craft brewery.
Gary Gillman
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
In terms of sources, here is one which discusses how the beer made by Dutch incomers differed from the old English ale:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=v2JRAAA ... ps&f=false
In this particular case, the hop is viewed as healthy ("physicall"), but many at the time Dutch beer made its inroads viewed the hop as dangerous. By the mid-1800's, the view had reversed though, which is why you read many recommendations of heavily hopped English pale ales in the Victorian-era Lancet and other medical sources - not something you would see today in relation to alcohol.
Gary
http://books.google.ca/books?id=v2JRAAA ... ps&f=false
In this particular case, the hop is viewed as healthy ("physicall"), but many at the time Dutch beer made its inroads viewed the hop as dangerous. By the mid-1800's, the view had reversed though, which is why you read many recommendations of heavily hopped English pale ales in the Victorian-era Lancet and other medical sources - not something you would see today in relation to alcohol.
Gary
Gary Gillman
-
S. St. Jeb
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Burlington, ON
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Thanks Jordan. Here now is a series of very valuable tables and comments from beer historian Ron Pattinson. Ron specializes in studying historical brewing records.
http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerale.htm
His tables from the earlier to mid-1800's show that there was a clear difference between the hops per barrel (shown in lbs) of X - the basic mild ale - and "PA" or "IPA" or "bitter beer", i.e., bitter. Look at the tables for Griffin brewery for example. In 1839, Griffin's IPA at 1060 OG (perhaps 6.5% ABV or even higher since IPA was well-attenuated at this time) has 5.88 lbs hops per barrel of beer, which is a 36 gallon barrel.
Griffin's X ale - its basic mild ale again - in the same year, as shown in a separate table for its ale grists, had an OG of about 1070, thus about 7% ABV (but maybe less since milds were attenuated down to preserve sweetness). This ale used only 2.08 lbs per barrel. So what I am saying is, the ABV of these two beers was in practice likely the same or almost but the IPA had more than double the hops. I doubt many modern pale ales use the equivalent of 2 lbs leaf hops per barrel - some have done this though, but did they use 5-6 lbs and age the beer in wood for months to boot? This is why I think most pale ales today are closer to Griffin's and other brewers' mid-1800's mild ales.
True, hops today are used "fresh", not long-aged as some hops were back then, and some (not all) varieties have higher alpha acid content than 1800's hops, but still, even if you discount the old numbers for this, it's still a lot of hops in both classes of malt beverage, ale and beer.
Ron's work on this site, his blog and other publications is very valuable to assist to understand old beer styles and how they changed over time.
Gary
N.B. When reading these tables, it is important to account for the OG range of the beers and ales being looked at (remember again all porter and stout, export stout, etc. is "beer'). Thus, a strong ale long stored might use the same amount of hops as an IPA which is 3% less in alcohol but it's not a fair comparison because of the strength difference, often referred to in Ron's tables as "pounds per barrel" meaning here pounds of fermentable sugar per barrel or per quarter of malt (a volume measure of malt frequently used in this period). The important thing is to compare like with like, meaning beers of similar original gravity range. If one does this, I believe you will see that ales (the X beers) on average used way less hops than pale ales and porter/stouts but that the range narrowed by the time you reach 1900 with hop consumption for both types falling significantly. This fall was likely due to the fact that beer was no longer stored as long as it used to be and also, the onset of more refrigeration in brewing.
http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerale.htm
His tables from the earlier to mid-1800's show that there was a clear difference between the hops per barrel (shown in lbs) of X - the basic mild ale - and "PA" or "IPA" or "bitter beer", i.e., bitter. Look at the tables for Griffin brewery for example. In 1839, Griffin's IPA at 1060 OG (perhaps 6.5% ABV or even higher since IPA was well-attenuated at this time) has 5.88 lbs hops per barrel of beer, which is a 36 gallon barrel.
Griffin's X ale - its basic mild ale again - in the same year, as shown in a separate table for its ale grists, had an OG of about 1070, thus about 7% ABV (but maybe less since milds were attenuated down to preserve sweetness). This ale used only 2.08 lbs per barrel. So what I am saying is, the ABV of these two beers was in practice likely the same or almost but the IPA had more than double the hops. I doubt many modern pale ales use the equivalent of 2 lbs leaf hops per barrel - some have done this though, but did they use 5-6 lbs and age the beer in wood for months to boot? This is why I think most pale ales today are closer to Griffin's and other brewers' mid-1800's mild ales.
True, hops today are used "fresh", not long-aged as some hops were back then, and some (not all) varieties have higher alpha acid content than 1800's hops, but still, even if you discount the old numbers for this, it's still a lot of hops in both classes of malt beverage, ale and beer.
Ron's work on this site, his blog and other publications is very valuable to assist to understand old beer styles and how they changed over time.
Gary
N.B. When reading these tables, it is important to account for the OG range of the beers and ales being looked at (remember again all porter and stout, export stout, etc. is "beer'). Thus, a strong ale long stored might use the same amount of hops as an IPA which is 3% less in alcohol but it's not a fair comparison because of the strength difference, often referred to in Ron's tables as "pounds per barrel" meaning here pounds of fermentable sugar per barrel or per quarter of malt (a volume measure of malt frequently used in this period). The important thing is to compare like with like, meaning beers of similar original gravity range. If one does this, I believe you will see that ales (the X beers) on average used way less hops than pale ales and porter/stouts but that the range narrowed by the time you reach 1900 with hop consumption for both types falling significantly. This fall was likely due to the fact that beer was no longer stored as long as it used to be and also, the onset of more refrigeration in brewing.
Gary Gillman
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
This is from the famous brewer Fuller's (of London, U.K.) website:
http://www.fullers.co.uk/rte.asp?id=178
110 kg of hops is 242 lbs hops. To brew 640 barrels of London Pride, I get .37 lbs hops per barrel. London Pride is a pale ale, a bitter or "beer" in the old terminology. They don't say if it is pellets or leaf hops. Assuming it is pellets, I've read that 2/3rds pellets equal 3/3rds leaf hops. This is due to the concentrated nature of the pelletization.
So, say it is .50 lbs leaf hops per barrel (just approximately). I think London Pride is 1042 OG approximately again. Griffin's 1839 mild ale was perhaps 2/3rds stronger in OG. So say we increase the hops in the London Pride to 1lb to make a rough comparison, or you could look at the hops used by Fuller's to brew a 7% strong ale (it has one or two in its range) but I don't know that number. Say even you increase the hops in the Pride to 1.5 lbs to account for higher alpha acid hops and fresher hops of today. It is still less than the 2 lbs leaf hops per barrel of the Griffin 1839 mild X.
Even if you say all in all the conversion should be to 2 lbs hops, then it is the same as a mild ale of 1839 (arguably of course, I'm just trying to make a general point), but rather distant from the hopping in Griffin's pale ale of that year. Also, current pale ale from Fuller's or any brewery generally is not long stored in wood and then bottled with its yeast for months, as pale ale originally was.
For these reasons, I think again most modern pale ale, including most craft ale (not all), is probably an "ale" not a "beer" using these terms in their meaning of the Victorian era, a meaning that had endured for hundreds of years until it finally began to change.
London Pride is a great beer, it was one of the best beers I had on my last trip to London a few years ago. I am not saying 1800's mild ale or pale ale was better. The reverse may well be the case.
I am simply suggesting using admittedly rough calculations, that one must look at ale vs. beer over time and their relationship has changed and become more relative in the present day. The efforts of craft brewers have only partly changed this calculus and it is complicated by the fact that the "hoppy" beers of today largely use American-grown or originated varieties that have no analogue in the 1800's in the U.K., since American hops were not used as the main hops in beer there at that time, at most they were imported (starting about the 1840's) to form a small percentage of the hop grist. The reason given for restricting their use was the flavour was felt coarse and not suitable for mild and pale ales.
Gary
http://www.fullers.co.uk/rte.asp?id=178
110 kg of hops is 242 lbs hops. To brew 640 barrels of London Pride, I get .37 lbs hops per barrel. London Pride is a pale ale, a bitter or "beer" in the old terminology. They don't say if it is pellets or leaf hops. Assuming it is pellets, I've read that 2/3rds pellets equal 3/3rds leaf hops. This is due to the concentrated nature of the pelletization.
So, say it is .50 lbs leaf hops per barrel (just approximately). I think London Pride is 1042 OG approximately again. Griffin's 1839 mild ale was perhaps 2/3rds stronger in OG. So say we increase the hops in the London Pride to 1lb to make a rough comparison, or you could look at the hops used by Fuller's to brew a 7% strong ale (it has one or two in its range) but I don't know that number. Say even you increase the hops in the Pride to 1.5 lbs to account for higher alpha acid hops and fresher hops of today. It is still less than the 2 lbs leaf hops per barrel of the Griffin 1839 mild X.
Even if you say all in all the conversion should be to 2 lbs hops, then it is the same as a mild ale of 1839 (arguably of course, I'm just trying to make a general point), but rather distant from the hopping in Griffin's pale ale of that year. Also, current pale ale from Fuller's or any brewery generally is not long stored in wood and then bottled with its yeast for months, as pale ale originally was.
For these reasons, I think again most modern pale ale, including most craft ale (not all), is probably an "ale" not a "beer" using these terms in their meaning of the Victorian era, a meaning that had endured for hundreds of years until it finally began to change.
London Pride is a great beer, it was one of the best beers I had on my last trip to London a few years ago. I am not saying 1800's mild ale or pale ale was better. The reverse may well be the case.
I am simply suggesting using admittedly rough calculations, that one must look at ale vs. beer over time and their relationship has changed and become more relative in the present day. The efforts of craft brewers have only partly changed this calculus and it is complicated by the fact that the "hoppy" beers of today largely use American-grown or originated varieties that have no analogue in the 1800's in the U.K., since American hops were not used as the main hops in beer there at that time, at most they were imported (starting about the 1840's) to form a small percentage of the hop grist. The reason given for restricting their use was the flavour was felt coarse and not suitable for mild and pale ales.
Gary
Gary Gillman
Thanks Gary,
As I guessed, just like drinking from a firehose of knowledge.
I can just imagine the discussion raging in the next century over all the concoctions we are making and naming to our own marketing convenience or craft brewery creativity.
I suspect the debate will be around when do we call it beer and when do we call it a beverage, or malt cocktail. We already have enough products where the terminology can become an issue. I could just see a conservative group like the EU regulatory bodies insisting that say a commercial light-lime lager be called a beverage since it's closer in character to a soda pop. Then, of course, we would be arguing over where to draw the line. Would we throw all the Belgian fruit beers under that same bus? All adjunct beers?
Perhaps they had it right by using 'ale' as a catchall to cover any fermented barley regardless of what else was in it. When most 'ale' was being brewed in kitchens all over the country and subject to every family recipe and local adaptation, it must have been like our craft brewery scene. I know for myself, I homebrew like a home cook. I work from a knowledge (or experiment to gain knowledge) of ingredients and aim for a beer I hope I will like and then call it whatever it seams close to. BJCP be damned.
As I guessed, just like drinking from a firehose of knowledge.
I can just imagine the discussion raging in the next century over all the concoctions we are making and naming to our own marketing convenience or craft brewery creativity.
I suspect the debate will be around when do we call it beer and when do we call it a beverage, or malt cocktail. We already have enough products where the terminology can become an issue. I could just see a conservative group like the EU regulatory bodies insisting that say a commercial light-lime lager be called a beverage since it's closer in character to a soda pop. Then, of course, we would be arguing over where to draw the line. Would we throw all the Belgian fruit beers under that same bus? All adjunct beers?
Perhaps they had it right by using 'ale' as a catchall to cover any fermented barley regardless of what else was in it. When most 'ale' was being brewed in kitchens all over the country and subject to every family recipe and local adaptation, it must have been like our craft brewery scene. I know for myself, I homebrew like a home cook. I work from a knowledge (or experiment to gain knowledge) of ingredients and aim for a beer I hope I will like and then call it whatever it seams close to. BJCP be damned.
Brands are for cattle.
Fans are cash cows.
The herd will consume until consumed.
Fans are cash cows.
The herd will consume until consumed.
Not to start an ale v.s. lager discussion here, but the issue of naming reminds me of how Rogue describes their Dead Guy Ale as a Maibock. I can't think of another example of a Maibock being considered an ale or being brewed with top fermenting yeast.
I guess it's proof that the outcome is more important to naming than the process.
I guess it's proof that the outcome is more important to naming than the process.
Brands are for cattle.
Fans are cash cows.
The herd will consume until consumed.
Fans are cash cows.
The herd will consume until consumed.
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Right thanks and I know I went on a bit but it's hard to say just a little on this topic. I agree with you that in a sense we have returned to the not-necessarily-hops origins of ale whose essence is malt, barley malt in fact. It's a cereal drink and while the hop will always be central to beer's flavour, it doesn't have to be exclusive and we are returning to a time (in part) when it wasn't. I agree too that there would have been countless tastes in the 1800's and perhaps some of what we do today, including low hopping, was done then and the names were likely not consistent.
Still, something that has largely disappeared IMO is classic English IPA with its 5-6 lbs hops per barrel. Imperial Stout has returned "better" IMO again although perhaps not generally with the aging and hop levels it got in its classic phase.
Gary
Still, something that has largely disappeared IMO is classic English IPA with its 5-6 lbs hops per barrel. Imperial Stout has returned "better" IMO again although perhaps not generally with the aging and hop levels it got in its classic phase.
Gary
Gary Gillman
-
JeffPorter
- Beer Superstar
- Posts: 2552
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:39 am
- Location: Brampton, ON