Have a look at this review over at Ding's:
Almost immediately it feels as though one is drinking a sickly sweet, sugar solution that has been infused with honey and molasses. There are very brief glimpses of a little liquor/barrel notes and even a hint of acid funk, but within fractions of a second these are completely overwhelmed with sugar. It seems like underneath this glucose, fructose, sucrose attack, there may be some bitter licorice, but again the sugar is so violent it abuses any subtlety. The alcohol is actually conspicuous by its absence. Under different circumstances one might say ‘well hidden’, but actually in this case it’s a question of eating 10 lbs of pure sugar masking almost any other possible taste sensation. There really is absolutely NOTHING else here apart from a devastating sugar presence – literally nothing.
While I appreciate the point that Zak is making about the personal nature of favorite beers, I am coming to think that the reluctance of beer fans to criticize poor craft beers¹ is leading to a general perception that the identification and discussion of poorly thought out beers by reputable craft brewers is also a matter of personal opinion. It's not. We've all had them. Overly boozy ales. Beers made to highlight a certain odd barreling technique. Imperial pilsners. Beers that probably should not have seen the light of day or at least not a retail shelf. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with experimentation. I just don't care to pay for the experiments of others. What is worse is when the experiment is an obvious failure but it is released - presumably to recoup expenses given the hit to its reputation the brewery can only know it would take if drinkers actually reported on the experience. I think Ding's review fairly raises suspicions in that direction.
Have craft breweries gone out of business due to their repeated failings as brewers of good beer? Probably - but maybe not enough of them. Not being mean. I have one in particular in mind which goes nameless as I prefer not to taint my blog with their name. Short of that, there have not to my mind been enough fairly minded calling out of a poorly made beer with the facts to back it up. Too often, criticisms are layered with attacks on the PR slant of the marketing, assumptions about intentions or frustrations with measuring stick debates about style. A proper review of a really poorly made beer is not about that. It's just about how poor the beer actually is.
¹aka bad good beer... as opposed to good bad beer.
Comments
Pivní Filosof - April 30, 2012 1:25 AM
This is a raging debate in the Spanish beer blogosphere, there are some people who refuse to publish reviews of bad beers, or even of beers they didn't like, because they don't want to hurt someone. At least now we've come to the point that they (or at least most of them) accept someone else doing so, which, believe me, is a step forward from the position we were a couple of years back.
I'm not anyone to say what people should write in their blogs, but I fear that if they only talk about what's pretty about a certain segment of the brewing industry, instead of bloggers they will be unpaid shill. But that's not my problem.
Zak - April 30, 2012 3:30 AM
But Alan, how does one differentiate between poorly-made and poorly-conceived? For example, I'm ambivalent about the output of Hitachino Nest, which seem to me to be a collection of overwrought concepts that get in the way of the beer. They are all well-executed, but just, in my opinion, bad ideas.
Bailey - April 30, 2012 4:16 AM
I always find the Beer Nut's reviews frank without being snarky.
Each to his own on this issue, I'd say. If a given writer doesn't feel comfortable delivering a public kicking to a small businessperson, then I'm not going to blame them; I might, however, feel annoyed if they gave their beer an unwarranted *good* review (i.e. lied).
There are certain breweries you hear nothing about in the Blogoshire. That's often because their beer is bad/boring. Ignoring them is, in itself, (a passive) form of negative criticism.
Alan - April 30, 2012 7:46 AM
Zak, I think that poorly made and poorly thought out are two separate problems. I have more sympathy for the first as, with a bit of work, it can be corrected and the brewer is more likely to be accepting of constructive criticism. Bad ideas are harder to shake. Some are actually business plans as a sad effort to stand out or even, horrors, to become rock star beer. I think we could call that "premium craft" (ie paying more for the same or less) and I do take your point about Hitachino Nest.
Bailey, at some point the business have to get out of their awkward teen years. In this market, however, there seem to be a lot of folk sprouting grey hairs pretending they are still waiting to go to the prom. At some point, the voluntary buffering of strangers making a product we want to like but can't is not only impolite but counter productive and even against beer fan interests. Brewers are not my favoured nephews.
Alan - April 30, 2012 7:50 AM
PS: Max, there is nothing sadder than the unpaid brand ambassador. Just as we should disagree when we face premium craft, should we not call out the UBAs?
Bailey - April 30, 2012 9:34 AM
We know where our threshold is -- the point at which we consider a brewery fair game for public criticism -- but where other people draw their line is their business.
To put that another way, we're not mugs when it comes to breweries, or commentators on breweries: we don't to read anything which sounds like mindless everything-is-awesome-yay! non-critique; but we tend to respect people who focus on what they like and ignore what they don't.
We may not come to an agreement on this...
Alan - April 30, 2012 10:09 AM
No, that is well put and I bet a reader would actually find more expressions of disappointment in your writing than mine.
Bailey - April 30, 2012 10:32 AM
Perhaps the important thing is that a writer acknowledges there *is* such a thing as bad craft beer even if they don't name names?
Jordan St.John - April 30, 2012 11:23 AM
I have found a pleasant balance. Typically, if I'm writing for the newspaper, I try to be positive because I don't want to get sued and my job gets easier if more people drink craft beer in the long term. If I'm writing for the blog, I tend to just say what I think.
Jeff Alworth - April 30, 2012 1:41 PM
The time has come for a blog called: Beers to Avoid or something like it. I'd contribute. (It would be hard for that to be a single-writer blog, but maybe someone who drinks a lot more beer than me.) In my view bad beer comes in three categories, and they're all useful to condemn--though for different reasons.
1. Beers made cheaply to sell to a mass audience. Not all light lagers suck, but some--especially the gimmick beers--can be really terrible.
2. Infected/flawed beers. Mercifully far rarer than they once were, thanks both to more skillful brewing beer-handling.
3. Ill-conceived or badly-executed beers. These are the hardest to review, but the most valuable. If that cool sour ale that's getting a 99 on BeerAdvocate tastes like battery acid, someone needs to call it out.
I'm with you, Alan! (Err, right behind you.)
Jeff Alworth - April 30, 2012 1:41 PM
The time has come for a blog called: Beers to Avoid or something like it. I'd contribute. (It would be hard for that to be a single-writer blog, but maybe someone who drinks a lot more beer than me.) In my view bad beer comes in three categories, and they're all useful to condemn--though for different reasons.
1. Beers made cheaply to sell to a mass audience. Not all light lagers suck, but some--especially the gimmick beers--can be really terrible.
2. Infected/flawed beers. Mercifully far rarer than they once were, thanks both to more skillful brewing beer-handling.
3. Ill-conceived or badly-executed beers. These are the hardest to review, but the most valuable. If that cool sour ale that's getting a 99 on BeerAdvocate tastes like battery acid, someone needs to call it out.
I'm with you, Alan! (Err, right behind you.)
Mike Phillips - April 30, 2012 9:50 PM
Well said Jeff. I'm particularly offended by those that constantly pass off badly infected beers as "craft" and then speak to the skill of the brewer. Makes me sick. Freddy Beach New Brunswick produces more diacetyl than even Orville Redenbacher could ever hope to use.
Amanda K. - May 6, 2012 11:16 AM
I know exactly which brewer you speak of Mike. What's even more maddening is one of New Brunswick’s local beer writers, who also writes for TAPS, still promotes these ales as "good beer".