There’s an ongoing dispute in the beer world divided along the lines of “extreme beer” and, well… non-extreme beer. Perhaps “traditional” or “balanced” would be an apt label? Call it what you will, it’s a desire to return to the more accessible and familiar styles that Europe has conjured up over the last 500 or so years, and to get away from the high-alcohol, massively hopped segment of the beer market.
I seem to recall a conversation regarding the lack of restrictions on American brewing, how style and tradition had less of an importance in the States due to our fairly young beer culture. For the life of me, I don’t have an trail back to that exact place in cyberspace, but it’s one I’ve had and heard many times in the past. Even the article by Peter Rowe included a quote from Alex De Smet, who made the implication that some of these styles are hundreds of years old, and that “…it takes time to balance a beer.”
But “extreme” is everywhere. Would De Dolle Brouwers, Brasserie Fantôme, or Brouwerij De Regenboog be considered completely contrary to “extreme”? They’re using unorthodox methods and ingredients to create off-the-wall beers that may only be appreciated by a small segment of the beer drinking market. So what’s the verdict there?
In my opinion, the craft beer market has grown in the United States by double digits in the past year because people are becoming more aware of these kinds of flavorful beers, which some may categorize as “extreme.” A while back in a BeerAdvocate forum, Garrett Oliver aired his concerns over the extreme beer trend and labeling beer as such, claiming that it actually hurts the craft brewer financially in terms of marketing. I’m not so convinced, seeing as how there are gateway beers that many discover before taking the plunge into something more esoteric. This would explain the popularity of Sam Adams and Sierra Nevada, but would also indicate that breweries like Stone and Dogfish Head are growing exponentially because of this.
Maybe it’s the fluidity of terms in the beer world, such as “craft” or “extreme,” but the article points out that even Mr. Oliver has admitted to liking beers that could be categorized as “extreme.” It could just be a matter of personal semantics, but there is no definitive answer to these uncertainties yet, so we all may just be reading from different sheets of music.
Pivní Filosof made a recent post about an Italian beer tasting that included a discussion with Evan Rail about trends in the Italian beer market. Apparently, these microbrewed craft beers are targeting the gourmet consumers, or trade-uppers:
“…all beers come only in 750ml bottles. Many are sold at luxury restaurants as well as at specialist or deli shops. All beers are made with ingredients of the highest quality, and their goal is to compete with wines.”
So while the Italians are unrestrained by the rigors of tradition, they still keep things classy. Some of the beers they produce that have made it to the States illustrate the complexity and innovation that are part of the rise of Italian microbrewing. The way I see it, these brewers are attempting to compete with wine in the sense that they’re trying to gain the respect that wine has, not become them. There’s a fine line between classifying something as a luxury item (which beer is), and jacking up the price on something because you want to give the impression that your product is more luxurious. That’s not necessarily competing so much as it is tilting your nose skyward.
Others have had knee-jerk reactions to anyone warning of beer snobbery, perhaps because they don’t share the same inclusive, social experience that beer has to offer, and prefer to drink by themselves. That’s fine, but it is pervasive, and can hurt craft beer just as much as the “extreme” label.
So let me lay my cards on the table. I see both sides as equally important: I can appreciate the drinkable session brew just as much as I can a well-balanced Double IPA. To me, extreme beer is innovation from tradition, not merely upping alcohol or hops, and some brewers that have been burdened with this tag have proven that’s not solely what it’s about. Respect should be given to the noble tradition of brewing and beer itself, but at the same time leave an open door for new drinkers and new approaches, not become an exclusive club trying to be the “new wine”.
What’s the answer? Should we be concentrating on returning to a simpler, more traditional approach to beer, or constantly search for the most extreme ingredients and aspects of brewing? Can there be elements included from either side?
Looking down at where my cards have been laid, I see there’s room at the table for both.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 1, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Boak
Absolutely. While I appreciate “extreme beers” from time to time, you can’t drink them in the pub (even if you can find them), not unless you want to spend the next day groaning on the sofa and vowing never to drink again.
And yes, surely the Belgians invented extreme beers?
May 2, 2008 at 3:29 am
Pivní Filosof
For what I’ve read (and correct me if I’m wrong), this “extreme” beer thing seems to be an American phenomenon. Probably due to the huge amount of craft and micro breweries competing for a relatively small market.
As I see it, there are two reasons for this trend:
1- They are like those super cars. Those that can go at 400km/h, have 2000hp, and stuff like that. Hardly anyone is going to buy them, and those who do, will probably have them gathering dust in their garages because there isn’t any road in the world where you can actually drive it as you should. Yet, all the media will talk about them, they will make the cover of specialist magazines and thus, bring some publicity to the company.
2- They are a pissing contest among brewers.
I like strong, extreme or “weird” beers, but not when they’ve been brewed just for the sake of being strong, extreme or weird.
Anyway, nobody is forcing me to buy them, same with expensive beers. They are a decision of the brewer and since we live in a pretty much Reinheitsgebot free world, they can brew as they fancy.
May 2, 2008 at 8:50 am
E.S. Delia
It’s great to be able to hear some non-American voices offer their perspectives on the matter, seeing as how “extreme” beer seems to be solely a US phenomenon.
But that’s what is really confusing to me. Why is this moniker confined to beers from the States? I understand there is a certain cultural context in which this takes place: America is the land of bigger, better, faster. Everything we do seems to strive for one of those three, often times against our better nature or well-being.
When specifically talking about beer, I see the Double IPA or the Imperial Oatmeal Stout as two examples of styles Americans have taken and made all their own. However, if you look at some Belgian brewers, such as De Dolle or Regenboog, they’re doing things our brewers haven’t dared to try.
Perhaps some of these have been inspired by the American micro movement, I think Denmark’s Mikkeller is probably a great example of that. But there you go, “extreme” beer is already beyond our shores. De Ranke XX Bitter or Houblon Chouffe are hybrid styles influenced by American styles, but apparently there is a want for these “extreme” beers, too.
However, I would point to the popularity of Allagash and Russian River, two breweries that are renowned for their eccentric approach to Belgian-style beer. I’d agree with Boak that Belgians were the original “extreme” brewers, and we’ve certainly taken a cue from them. Both breweries seem to be looking toward traditional styles and adding their own imprint, much as some Belgian breweries have done with their Belgo-American fusion beers.
So maybe “extreme” beer is hardly a worldwide phenomenon, but at the same time, it’s definitely not confined to the United States.
Pivní Filosof, you bring up a good point with your analogy, and I’ll agree that “extreme for the sake of extreme” is not a good policy. Many times, these beers fall short. Barrel-aging is a perfect example of that; it’s a trend that has become more popular, but with that you have more breweries doing a less than stellar job with their beers.
And just like with that, and several other trends in the beer world, it’s a fine line to walk.
May 2, 2008 at 9:52 am
Pivní Filosof
I agree that extreme beers are not only brewed in the US. But they seem to be a marginal thing, maybe copying the American trend more than a trend of their own making. Yet, is about people just following a trend and not doing what they can do best.
The biggest question here is if extreme beers are a good thing for craft brewing. They are catching a lot of attention and make many of us talk about them, while at the same time “forgetting” about more “normal”, yet nonetheless interesting brews.
In my spanish blog I chose as beer of 2007 Desítka from the Chýně brewpub. 10°balling and a bit over 3%ABV, still is a beer with a lot of taste, character, balance and great mouthfeel. That is the kind of beer I would like to see more of. The problem is that many who think they know about beer might look at its low ABV and will dismiss it.
May 2, 2008 at 10:25 am
E.S. Delia
I’ll admit that we do lack many sessionable beers here in the US, and it’s something I’d like to see more of from our brewers. American beer writer Lew Bryson has even waged a campaign to bring back the session beer.
I’ll also admit that some of my favorite beers of 2007 were not “extreme.” The Mad River Double IPA is a little misleading; it’s actually not as bitter and in-your-face as the style appears, which is one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much.
May 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Pivní Filosof
There is nothing wrong with the session beer. I love it. After all, session beers are the ones you are most likely to be sharing with friends. That in itself is great, and even better if you are drinking a good beer that you know you can drink a fair amount of without fearing the consequences the day after.
Or what about thirst quenchers? What more noble purpose for a drink than that?
I think beer people tend to look too much at ratings, there is where the extreme beers tend to do better than their more humble session counterparts. And that shows the sort of twisted idea of rating, it gives the impression that everything is measured, or must be measured, with the same bar.