Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Microbrews taste - HORRIBLE!?

If you're a friend of the people who make Coors, of course you're going to bash beers that are actually, you know, tasty. The Atlantic's Uri Friedman points out why Coors family friend-slash-nimrod Rick Ball thinks that microbrews are icky: they are supposed to quench your thirst, not be sipped and savored like a wine. He continues:

A good beer cannot be sickly sweet, and it also can't be overwhelmingly bitter. That's what I have against a lot of microbrews. You can't gulp them down all at once. Frankly, I think microbrewed ales have been promoted and become popular mainly because they are easier to make. Ale yeasts also are more finicky--they don't digest all of the sugars, so they leave all these sugary notes hanging around in the final product. The flavor of an ale tends to be very complicated, while a lager is cleaner and more dry. It's easy to get bedazzled by the spectacle of a busy, full flavor. There's a lot going on. But there is greater virtue in simplicity. You can make a mediocre ale and no one will notice; with a lager, there is nowhere to hide. [Ball, as quoted in Friedman]
It's that second sentence that gets me. You can't gulp them down all at once? If I wanted to do that I'd get a shot of tequila, or a glass of water if I'm really thirsty. There is no reason why I have to quench my thirst with something that tastes like pee.


Dan said...

That's fantastic.... so the criteria of a beer is whether or not I can gulp it down all at once? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Natty Boh, the finest beer in all the land!

Robert said...

It was a poor choice of words, but his point is valid. The microbrew craze has rewarded the simplest form of brewing at the expense of the lager. I am disappointed when some of the beer taverns don't have even one lager on tap. I happen to like a great kolsch, golden pilsner, or other form of lager.