I'd also like to just update people on the "politics of beer" that is the "rhetoric of extreme beer" if you can call it anything.
There are two sides, one headed by Brewmaster at Brooklyn Brewery Garrett Oliver who is opposed to use of the term "Extreme Beer" because it is an extremely unflattering title that makes one think of beer for the sake of ABV and not flavor. The other side is taken by Sam Calagione of Dogfish Head (unsurprisingly) who believes that the title is symbolic, if anything, of the development of beer beyond the boundaries of what's normally considered "beer." Essentially it's a clash of cultures - Sam arguing for the "radical" and pushing beer beyond its boundaries and Garrett the traditional, that beer should be respected categorically.
I personally am in the middle, but I'd say I side more with Mr. Oliver than I do Sam, but it's obviously not for lack of respect - I think that Dogfish Head will always be one of my favorite breweries and, now that I live in Alexandria, I will look forward to frequenting their Alehouses. Anyways, I think Mr. Oliver is right, a single beer beer, at the end of the day, should be acknowledged as part of something greater than itself categorically. This is not to say that creativity in brewing shouldn't be encouraged and hybrid styles or beers made with "funky" ingredients or fermented with bacteria shouldn't be considered beer or welcomed with open arms. America, as a country, I believe has done a good job of being extremely creative within the boundaries of beer with the advent of Imperial beers and spins on every genre imaginable, etc. . I don't think the title "extreme beer" is necessary. Ultimately, I don't believe these two arguments are mutually exclusive - Sam can brew a 20% Abv "American Strong Ale" with whatever he wants and it will be considered beer, and that use of anything further to set it apart is unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment