OnTap Magazine

OPINION ack in 2015 the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) modified their style guidelines to incorporate a more extensive array of styles than their previous update in 2008. There was little argument that the 2008 guidelines were out of date but one reputed reason why it took so long for the new guidelines to be introduced was the difficulty that the organisers had in identifying new ‘styles’ as opposed to ‘sub-styles’, derivatives or even one- off fads. I don’t think I’m far off in saying that styles and style categories have got entirely out of hand. The most obvious example is the Black IPA. I like to consider the (ir)relevance of this beer as a style based on the simple fact that I have yet to hear any other item on this planet described as both ‘black’ and ‘pale’ before. Unless, of course, it was an actual black pail. I know a number of beer geeks will come at me saying that the style’s real name is a Cascadian Dark Ale, but even disregarding the apparent misnomer that is the Black IPA, the definition of the style is hardly agreed upon. The most illuminating example of the disagreements this style engenders happened in an IPA competition. A so- called Black IPA was presented that had no semblance of hop character and was so reminiscent of an American Stout that I disqualified it without a second thought... and it still made it to the final round of the competition! WHEN IS A SAISON NOT A SAISON? It feels like there has been a total breakdown in communication over what a beer actually is; a breakdown that I would argue has come about largely because of the creation of new style definitions. Whether examining the faddish “white stout” or the BJCP- defined White IPA, the essence of the base style has been bastardised in much the same way that the English language has somehow synonymised ‘flammable’ and ‘inflammable’. The difference between these two examples, however, is that while ‘flammable’ and ‘inflammable’ are commonly used and understood to mean ‘something that can burst into flames’, the fast development of beer styles has outpaced many people’s ability to understand the components of the new inventions. It is here that I have to backtrack a bit. Beer styles, whatever they come to be, used to be based on a number of things: history and/or provenance, ingredients, brewing technique, and overall sensory profile (I include basic specifications such as SRM and IBUs in this category). Thus, by citing a beer as a porter, you are at the very least signifying that it will be a dark, malt-forward beer that may display a bit of chocolate character. At most you are tapping into a customer’s knowledge of the history, ingredients and process of that style to contribute to their own enjoyment of the beer, or even build your brand’s own history and reputation. In the past five years (give or take) however, many of these things have been thrown out the window. A good example of this is listed in the BJCP guidelines themselves, where it states that a Saison made with Brettanomyces should be classified into the ‘American Wild Ale’ category. To re-enforce that point, the BJCP is claiming that a historically Belgian beer can be manipulated using different fermentation ingredients and techniques to produce different flavours, so that even if you still call it a saison (which they seem fine with) it shouldn’t be categorised as one. Instead, it should be categorized as an ‘American Wild Ale’... even if you brewed it in Zimbabwe. OUT WITH THE OLD… And while it is not a bad thing that experimental trends have become par for the course, it is difficult to then compare new styles with those that have been established for long periods of time. For decades, sour beers were almost exclusively brewed by ‘artisanal’ breweries in the Senne Valley region of Belgium using very special, even unique, ingredients, microflora, and methodologies. Nowadays, they can be made around the world in a tenth of the time by using mixed yeast cultures, acidification techniques, or alternative ingredients. These new beers will never be classed as ‘Lambic’ because of the geographic restrictions of the style, but at what point does history outweigh process parameters when defining a style? When do hops outweigh yeast? How can provenance be a defining feature of a Lambic when a blonde ale doesn’t have any such restrictions? How can one brewer style their 4% beer an IPA when another calls their 7.5% beer the same? How can a beer served through an infected tap be misconstrued as intentionally sour and praised for it? What all of this boils down to (pun intended) is that not only have we effectively eliminated the communicative efficiency and advertising capability that beer styles afforded us (‘It’s an IPA’ versus ‘Eh, it’s a hoppy beer that I made because I took inspiration from these British beers that were shipped to India that I read about’) but we also pretend that this method is still working, and even worth supporting, despite its proven track record of sowing confusion and discord in the ranks of today’s brewers and beer drinkers. Beer styles are no longer useful categorisations: they have become points of debate and have effectively shifted consumer and brewer conceptions of what good beer is into the realm of ‘new is automatically good’. The system is broken, and it’s time for a new one to come into play. This article was originally published on the Cara Technology website, http://www.cara-online.com . Styles and style categories have got entirely out of hand 60 | Summer 2019 | ontapmag.co.za