Canadian Brewing Awards 2011

[Ale's What Cures Ya]

Things like "North American Style Lager" and "Light (Calorie-Reduced) Lager" shouldn't be given recognition of any kind. They are insults to good beer.

They are all styles of beer. Just because you dont like the taste doesnt mean they arnt good. I get tired of hearing and reading this all the time.

They are inferior styles of beer that do a disservice to good beer. Having categories that recognize such tripe is tantamount to having a "Best Dollar Menu Item" award at a gourmet food competition.

[boney]

Things like "North American Style Lager" and "Light (Calorie-Reduced) Lager" shouldn't be given recognition of any kind. They are insults to good beer.

They are all styles of beer. Just because you dont like the taste doesnt mean they arnt good. I get tired of hearing and reading this all the time.

They are inferior styles of beer that do a disservice to good beer. Having categories that recognize such tripe is tantamount to having a "Best Dollar Menu Item" award at a gourmet food competition.

Agreed. It would be like entering Velveeta in the World Cheese Awards.

Paradoxically, it takes a ridiculous amount of skill to reliably and consitently produce such swill. I could play Devil's advocate, being the Canadian "Brewing" Awards and all, but I wont since it would make me vomit in my mouth a little.

[saints_gambit]

Things like "North American Style Lager" and "Light (Calorie-Reduced) Lager" shouldn't be given recognition of any kind. They are insults to good beer.

They are all styles of beer. Just because you dont like the taste doesnt mean they arnt good. I get tired of hearing and reading this all the time.

They are inferior styles of beer that do a disservice to good beer. Having categories that recognize such tripe is tantamount to having a "Best Dollar Menu Item" award at a gourmet food competition.

Macro beer makes up, oh, 90% of the beer that's sold in Canada. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, which you clearly don't. A very large number of people do like it. You may be an ale guy or a hop guy or a gueuze guy or whatever. It doesn't matter. An overwhelming number of people buy this stuff and drink it.

The problem is that if you discount the styles of beer that you claim are inferior, you're suddenly talking about less than 10% of the beer market. What you've done in your post there is to assume that this is a "Gourmet" competition. It isn't. It's a national competition that includes all Canadian beers.

You can say whatever you want about these people. You can say that they are ugly and their mothers dress them funny. You can say that they rode the short bus to school or that they like Taco Bell better than an actual mole sauce, or that they are worse than Hitler. They are probably not actually, for the record, worse than Hitler.

They're just some people who like beer. Like you. Except they don't like the beer you like.

Look at it this way. I really like the Mothers of Invention album We're Only In It For The Money. It's not to everyone's taste. Not everyone cares about "Who needs the Peace Corps?" or "The Idiot Bastard Son." You can't take it personally. It's very much an individual thing.

What you've done there is criticize a national industry-wide competition for not focusing on 10% of the industry to the exclusion of 90% of the beer produced in the country. I suppose you could have an awards ceremony that ignores the four or five most popular styles of beer, but it completely illegitimizes the event.

Where do you draw the line? Can Moosehead enter? Can their subsidiary company Hop City enter? Can Brick? Great Western? How should they have tailored their massively researched and advertised and extremely organized seven year old awards structure to cater to your taste?

In short, I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

[boney]

Good counter points. This deserves to be a lively debate. Not sure I agree with all of them, especially this point.....

What you've done there is criticize a national industry-wide competition for not focusing on 10% of the industry to the exclusion of 90% of the beer produced in the country. I suppose you could have an awards ceremony that ignores the four or five most popular styles of beer, but it completely illegitimizes the event.

Aren’t awards supposed to be for excellence? Are you arguing that there should be awards simply based on popularity? If so, Justin Beiber must the best singer that ever lived.

The Macro brews being contested here are indeed well crafted, maybe even immaculately crafted. They are, however, not good beers. If these awards are about technical skill, then yes they should absolutely be acknowledged. If the awards are about amazing tasting beer, however subjective, they don’t cut it by any argument except popularity. Mediocrity should not be awarded, let alone flavourless, uninspiring excuses for water.

Just my opinion. No offence will be taken to whoever disagrees with me. Respectful debate is awesome.

[saints_gambit]

Sure. But this is not the Amazing Tasting Canadian Brewing Awards.

This is the Canadian Brewing Awards. It reflects what's being brewed in Canada. Discussion about whether macro brews are mediocre (some or even most of them are) is immaterial.

If you excise all that is mediocre from day to day life, there would be no drive time radio or network sitcoms or public transit in Toronto. There would be no books for tweens about Vampires and most authors no matter how skilled would never get their second novels published. Middle career albums from your favorite artists would be thrown on the slag heap of history. Half of the James Bond movies wouldn't exist. The internet would have no blogs. Jersey Shore would have been forced to pack up their spray tans and go into exile. Stephen King would have been beaten to death. All of the locations of Country Style Donuts would have been razed to the ground.

The awards simply reflect reality. Mediocrity abounds. It is not an ideal world. If it were Salma Hayek would return my phone calls.

[boney]

Sure. But this is not the Amazing Tasting Canadian Brewing Awards.

True. But shouldn't it be? Why even have judges then?

The awards simply reflect reality. Mediocrity abounds. It is not an ideal world. If it were Salma Hayek would return my phone calls.

True again. I can't argue that mediocrity rules almost everything. But if the Canadian Brewing Awards are supposed to represent the best beers in Canada, shouldn't the best beers be represented? I think there is an arbitrary, yet real cut off for what constitutes "good" beer, regardless of what is popular. I think that line divides Moosehead and "North American Style Lager" from pretty much almost everything else.

I am a little confused. The argument you are to be making about mediocraty seems to be a little complacent and defeatist. Now, I know that's not really true because I read your blog, your articles etc. and I know you care deeply about beer. I even think I echoed in my earlier post tonight the same sentiment about macro beer as you expressed in your Sept 4th blog....." I can’t praise the beers, but I can praise the brewers". That doesn't mean we have to accept the status quo. Again, I don't think that's what you are advocating, but that's kind of what your argument sounds like.

Why arn't the Canadian Brewing Awards an ideal opportunity to stand up and say "not cool, man, not cool" with regards to one small aspect....especially when the 10% of us beer geeks can only help to further push good beer and strive to introduce that 90% that drink macro to better options?

[Tapsucker]

Sure. But this is not the Amazing Tasting Canadian Brewing Awards.

This is the Canadian Brewing Awards. It reflects what's being brewed in Canada. Discussion about whether macro brews are mediocre (some or even most of them are) is immaterial.

If you excise all that is mediocre from day to day life, there would be no drive time radio or network sitcoms or public transit in Toronto. There would be no books for tweens about Vampires and most authors no matter how skilled would never get their second novels published. Middle career albums from your favorite artists would be thrown on the slag heap of history. Half of the James Bond movies wouldn't exist. The internet would have no blogs. Jersey Shore would have been forced to pack up their spray tans and go into exile. Stephen King would have been beaten to death. All of the locations of Country Style Donuts would have been razed to the ground.

The awards simply reflect reality. Mediocrity abounds. It is not an ideal world. If it were Salma Hayek would return my phone calls.

Well put. After a look at your posts, I can admit my opinion is now different. I'm disappointed that we are not aiming higher, but I get it.

[saints_gambit]

Sure. But this is not the Amazing Tasting Canadian Brewing Awards.

True. But shouldn't it be? Why even have judges then?

The awards simply reflect reality. Mediocrity abounds. It is not an ideal world. If it were Salma Hayek would return my phone calls.

True again. I can't argue that mediocrity rules almost everything. But if the Canadian Brewing Awards are supposed to represent the best beers in Canada, shouldn't the best beers be represented? I think there is an arbitrary, yet real cut off for what constitutes "good" beer, regardless of what is popular. I think that line divides Moosehead and "North American Style Lager" from pretty much almost everything else.

I am a little confused. The argument you are to be making about mediocraty seems to be a little complacent and defeatist. Now, I know that's not really true because I read your blog, your articles etc. and I know you care deeply about beer. I even think I echoed in my earlier post tonight the same sentiment about macro beer as you expressed in your Sept 4th blog....." I can’t praise the beers, but I can praise the brewers". That doesn't mean we have to accept the status quo. Again, I don't think that's what you are advocating, but that's kind of what your argument sounds like.

Why arn't the Canadian Brewing Awards an ideal opportunity to stand up and say "not cool, man, not cool" with regards to one small aspect....especially when the 10% of us beer geeks can only help to further push good beer and strive to introduce that 90% that drink macro to better options?

They already do.

There are about 25 categories where microbreweries took damn near everything. Fat Tug is beer of the year and it's excellent. Picaroon's is brewery of the year, and they're excellent. You should've heard the applause when Ken Woods got up to accept his award for Ten Bitter Years.

If the macro argument sounds defeatist, it's because the criteria that they strive to meet are different. For them, great beer means consistent beer that people buy a lot of. You'll never hear me argue that all of their beers are good or palatable or delicious. They are, by the definition of those breweries though, great. They hit their mark every time and it takes a lot of work to do that.

The truth is that micro brewers constantly challenge the status quo. At some point, I recommend checking out the historical winners of the CBA's. Look at the variety of the entries and the expansion of categories and the sheer increase in quality of small brewery beer since the inception of the awards in 2004. It's astounding.

The change is gradual and it's visible over the seven years since the awards started. Micro brewers have come a long way, but it's a long term exercise in changing the tastes of the public. Every year the market share gets bigger. Every year the sales increase. Every year there are new breweries.

All you've got to do in order to make the Canadian Brewing Awards about good beer (which I guess we're defining as interesting small brewery beers, generally) is focus on the 75 medals won by small breweries instead of the 15 or so won by macros. I mean, the big guys have millions of hectoliters and all of the money in the world to throw at this thing and the little guys won by a ratio of 5:1 and that's not good enough?

If that's not a win for small brewers, I don't know what it'll take. Should we outlaw lager and nuke them?

[boney]

If the macro argument sounds defeatist, it's because the criteria that they strive to meet are different. For them, great beer means consistent beer that people buy a lot of. You'll never hear me argue that all of their beers are good or palatable or delicious. They are, by the definition of those breweries though, great. They hit their mark every time and it takes a lot of work to do that.

No argument from me here. I jsut wonder what the CBA's most want to represent, technical proficiency or good beer. Maybe it can be both, which is fine. Still, getting an award for best "North American Lager" makes it sound like the beer is excellent, which is is not. The beer is an excellent product in terms of consistency, but not in terms of flavour. Maybe there should be strictly technical categories?

The truth is that micro brewers constantly challenge the status quo. At some point, I recommend checking out the historical winners of the CBA's. Look at the variety of the entries and the expansion of categories and the sheer increase in quality of small brewery beer since the inception of the awards in 2004. It's astounding.

The change is gradual and it's visible over the seven years since the awards started. Micro brewers have come a long way, but it's a long term exercise in changing the tastes of the public. Every year the market share gets bigger. Every year the sales increase. Every year there are new breweries.

All you've got to do in order to make the Canadian Brewing Awards about good beer (which I guess we're defining as interesting small brewery beers, generally) is focus on the 75 medals won by small breweries instead of the 15 or so won by macros. I mean, the big guys have millions of hectoliters and all of the money in the world to throw at this thing and the little guys won by a ratio of 5:1 and that's not good enough? ?

No argument that craft beer in Canada has grown and succeded in leaps and bounds since the CBA's were started. It's something that brewers, breweries and those that consume those brews and advocate on behalf of those breweries should indeed be proud of. My only beef is with 2 or 3 categories.....big economic chunk, but as you note, a very small amount of the overall awards. Devoting some small effort towards continually moving away from what beer "was" to what beer "could be" is always welcomed. I hate the phrase "good enough". There's always ways to be better. Saying that the CBA's are an awesome testament to the evolution of brewing in Canada is correct, but also saying that the "North American Lager" category is lame and only represents technical proficiency is also fair.

Just out of curiostiy, since you were at the awards, have met many of the brewers employed by Macro breweries and I have not, did they attend the ceremony? Are they passionate about there jobs? It's passion that moves the industry forward, not meerly technical proficiency. If they don't brew quaffable beer, aren't passionate about their jobs (their immediate jobs, not just beer in general) then why in the world would we celebrate their technical proficency and give them an award? Maybe I'm, wrong and Macro brewers walk around with a shit eating grin everyday because they absolutely love their job and how it alllows them to engage in their passion for beer. If so, my argument it meaningless.

If that's not a win for small brewers, I don't know what it'll take. Should we outlaw lager and nuke them?

Nope. Everyone is free to like what they like. It just come down to what the CBA's represent, what they should represent and what they want to represent.....the best in beer or the best in mediocraty. It's what Ale's What Cure's Ya was alluding to, a Big Mac shouldn't be entered in a culinary contest with foie gras. Based on the the growth and shifting palates over the last 7 years, it's clear the CBA is moving towards fois gras and maybe should phase out fast food. It's still OK to crave a Big Mac from time to time, I just don't want to eat one at the CBA's.

[cmadd]

Are they passionate about there jobs? It's passion that moves the industry forward, not meerly technical proficiency. If they don't brew quaffable beer, aren't passionate about their jobs (their immediate jobs, not just beer in general) then why in the world would we celebrate their technical proficency and give them an award? Maybe I'm, wrong and Macro brewers walk around with a shit eating grin everyday because they absolutely love their job and how it alllows them to engage in their passion for beer. If so, my argument it meaningless.

http://saintjohnswort.ca/2011/09/04/in- ... coveralls/

[bartle]

We have the Golden Tap Awards for just beer geeks and the consumer and internet dwellers.



Canadian Brewing Awards is for Canadian brewers, breweries, and the industry itself. Brewers take great pride in their craft. If I craft a well made low-cal lager I'm going to be happy to know it was technically clean. That is a great award for the brewer not the consumer.

It's too easy to look at a list of winners and try and call bullshit when you're not really sure what goes on.

Relax! Have a homebrew...

[munrets]

[quote="cmadd"][quote]Are they passionate about there jobs? It's passion that moves the industry forward, not meerly technical proficiency. If they don't brew quaffable beer, aren't passionate about their jobs (their immediate jobs, not just beer in general) then why in the world would we celebrate their technical proficency and give them an award? Maybe I'm, wrong and Macro brewers walk around with a shit eating grin everyday because they absolutely love their job and how it alllows them to engage in their passion for beer. If so, my argument it meaningless.
[/quote]

http://saintjohnswort.ca/2011/09/04/in- ... coveralls/[/quote]

That was a brilliant read. And this thread has been particularly enlightening.

[Lackey]

Macro beer makes up, oh, 90% of the beer that's sold in Canada. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, which you clearly don't.

I agree with you on most points Jordan except this one. 90% of people drink macros, not because they "like" them but merely because it's the product that's been shoved in their face by advertising, lack of any choice, parents, peers, government collusion and fashion since they were teenagers. Often, marcro is the only beer available to someone for most of their life so I feel that saying 90% of people "like" it is unfair.
The generation that grew up out of prohibition only knows macro beer. I have four uncles and none of them have ever had more than a sip of anything but macro and many of their peers are the same (probably about 90%).
If you were to agree that the 90% figure is heavily skewed, it's easier to understand people's frustration with multiple-category beer awards for macro style beer. You literally could put a well crafted lager in at least 5 categories on any given Sunday and it could walk away with gold.
Again, I'm not faulting or taking anything away from macro brewers or the CBAs, they are just doing their job and doing it well.

[Saison]

Macro beer is an alcohol delivery system in the same way that cigarettes are a nicotine delivery system. That is the goal. Period. Having said that, the inclusion of those brewers doesn't bother me. But I'm not going to glorify it with bad arguments either.

We have already drawn lines on what is acceptable and what isn't. I don't see a malt liquor category for that line of marketed rubbish, so saying you can't make decisions is a cop out.

I find it interesting that Garrison entered and took bronze in the Saison category with a beer they brew and claim to be a wit.

On another note, a question I asked last year and received no response:

Where does all the entry money go? Just curious on cost breakdown...

[Cass]

A couple of clarifications (although I not part of the awards organizers I have some facts due to hostly involvement).

- There are guidelines set which define what a beer style category represents. It is my understanding that if a meet meets that defined criteria it can be entered into the category, regardless of what it's name or perception is. So Garrison Nit Wit qualified as saison as was defined by the guidelines. Similarly last year Garrison won gold in the imperial stout category for their Black IPA. It did so as it qualified within the guidelines set out.

- The money goes to fund the entire operation. Running this plus all the costs to put on the event add up. Many awards shows across different industries generally charge awards admission costs to fund themselves. The CBAs are no different.