Mass-produced beers - revisited
Do you want to live in a world where all mass-produced beers are shit? I don't - so I won't pretend they are. Beers from big breweries dominate the market both here and abroad. It's been that way for many years, and isn't going to change.
Thankfully, there are still some diamonds in the portfolios of the national and multinational brewcos. They might not be the best in the world, but they're readily available and can be enjoyed sans grimace. Take Pilsner Urquell, owned by SABMiller: some say it was better in years gone by, but to my mind it's still a first class beer on draught, even when pasteurised and sent to the UK. In the past I've referred to Staropramen - brewed in Prague but owned by InBev - as "one of the less enjoyable Czech lagers". I stand by that, but it's still streets ahead of the likes of Stella Artois and Carlsberg. We sell Star on draught in the pub, and on hot days I sometimes reach for one myself. It's a decent pint.
I've spent the best part of three years seeking out obscure and interesting beers from around the world. I've tried almost every variety, from funky Belgian lambics to aggressive American DIPAs. Now I find myself applying more experienced taste buds and a better understanding of beer to mainstream products I temporarily dismissed out of hand. What I find are significant qualitative differences that demand attention.
Unless you're happy to drastically restrict your options in terms of beers and the places you drink them in, then avoiding the produce of larger breweries simply isn't possible. I'm less enamoured than ever with pubs that cater principally for beer enthusiasts, and you know what I think about beer festivals. In short, I want to live - and drink - in the real world.
Pictured are the mighty fermentation tanks at the Staropramen brewery in Smichov, Prague. I last visited at the end of last year and took the photo during a tour.
Pictured are the mighty fermentation tanks at the Staropramen brewery in Smichov, Prague. I last visited at the end of last year and took the photo during a tour.
38 comments:
"I'm less enamoured than ever with pubs that cater principally for beer enthusiasts"
Good job you live in London then! (-:
The world was a better place some might say,when ALL pubs catered for beer enthusiasts.
You’re getting worse, old boy, Or just a rather transparent way to rattle some cages? (1) Pilsner Urquell DID use to be better, so it’s stretching it to still call it a “first class beer.” (2) It does taste, however, a lot better unpasteurised, but you’re talking about the pasteurised version-WTF? Praising a pasteurised draught beer being sent over to the UK is just bonkers. Tandleman made the point about Tiger in his blog, and this is just the same. Can’t help thinking you only rate it as it comes from the Czech Republic, so it must be good. Beer posers do the same with Belgium beers, even though a lot of them are pretty average.
Oh, and I find it quite easy to avoid the products of the larger breweries, and no one ever accused me of restricting my drinking options:)
Tyson: Of course I prefer Pilsner Urquell unpasteurised. That's how I used to drink it in several of my favourite pubs when I lived in Prague. But you can't get it that way in the UK. You see, the whole point here is that I'm talking about reality: not how things would be in an ideal world. The same applies to your point about importing beer from other countries.
I see your point, but you seem to be saying its crap, but hey, that's just how it is. Of course, the ideal world will always remain the ideal world, if you just accept the status quo. By that logic cask would have died off some time ago when kegs first wave sewpt the nation.
Tyson: "you seem to be saying its crap, but hey, that's just how it is
No, that's not what I'm saying either. If I try to explain any further I'll just be repeating myself, but here goes: I'm saying that some of the mass-produced beers aren't crap. I'm saying that some of them are rather good, and that, coupled with their wide availability, means I drink them from time to time.
Yes, just because a beer's from a brewery run by one man and his dog doesn't mean its good, and just because its from a macrobrewer doesn't mean its bad. Beer is beer, leave the politics to the politicians (who all seem to HATE beer anyway)
Stonch
what a lot of tosh you do write. mass produced means crap or not very good anyway.you're just admitting you've fallen for marketing over substance.you drink it because its available and you can't be arsed about quality.
Steve i think you are misguided.
Sierra Nevada, Sam Adams, and Fullers are mass brewers, and yet i would NEVER call their output crap, they may produce some beers I am not keen on, but crap beer no...
I am hearing in this argument the fanboy mindset, which is popular=bad.
I can't even believe I have been drawn into this one, as there will be NO concencose of opinion.
steve, if I think a mass-produced beer's OK or even good I'll say so, thanks. I'm not going to pretend it isn't just to cater to your prejudices.
prodigal2, I like the expression "fanboy mindset". Sums it up nicely.
stonch, write a blog about something else!! you aren't one of us - praps you were once (i doubt it!), but you certianly aren't now!!
Spooky. Only yesterday over a lovely pint of Pride, I said to my mate “I don’t think I’m going to the GBBF this year. I’m fed up with the queues, woolly hat wearing badge collectors, ticker-offers and intoxicated ‘amateurs’. I think I’ll spend the time enjoying proper beer, in a proper pub, without a badge, ale list or ‘witty’ t-shirt in sight.
Some very good points here, Stonch. We're always pretty pleased to see PU on draught, particularly in this heat. Alhough it does seem to often be a bit stale, it's noticeably better brew than Staropramen, Budvar or any of the usual British-brewed crap.
We've been re-appraising Leffe a bit recently. Yes I know. Multinational owned, dumbed-down, not like it used to be, just tastes of sugar etc etc. I reckon though, if you served it anonymously to a beer fan in a nice glass and told them it came from a microbrewery in Flanders they would be praising its delicate fruitiness and subtle spices.
This is probably like admitting to downloading child p*rn, so I'll stop there.
Stonch
I'll think we'll have to agree to disagree. The problem is that every drinker, whatever they drink, will never admit to drinking crap. That would be daft. Not that I'm saying PU is particularly bad, but pastuerised and kegged, it hardly counts as a first class beer. IMO of course.
Prodigal2
I think you're widening the goal posts slightly. None of the brewers you mention is actually a mass brewer in the terms we are talking, so don't count. Fullers, for example, are only a small part of a small market. And they're cask brewers, which is completely different, anyway. I don't hear popular=bad, nothing wrong with popular. Mass produced and popular are different terms, although not exclusive, naturally.
Just finished posting a bit on beer blogging. Might have to pen a follow up based on this! Wow!
Stonch; Agree. Beer can be as much about ‘occasion’ and ‘company’ as it can about labels and country of origin. Enjoy the beer in your hand and, if it doesn’t row your boat, get a different one and thank the brewing Gods that you have a choice, I say.
Boak and Tyson; We lie awake at night over here in Australia and dream of drinking PU on tap – even one in a bottle that hasn’t had to travel around the globe in a stinky container ship. ‘Brewed and bottled in Prague’ has a much nicer ring to it than ‘Brewed under licence in Patchewollock’. Yes, we really do have a place called Patchewollock.
Anonymous; ... “ you aren’t one of us ..” (!?!) Remember, me old mucker, opinions are like arses – everyone has one and most of ‘em stink. Hiding behind ‘Anonymous’ shoots down any feeble shred of credibility that your poorly constructed cheap shot may have had. Have a beer and a nice lie down.
And now, to celebrate the enjoyment that this post and its comments have given me, I am off to crack a mass produced Aussie lager, pour it into a Belgian specialty goblet, sit it on one of my collection of English Pub beer mats and, in my best arrogant fake-French accent shout loudly ...
“Vive le’ Difference, mate!”
Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner
What's the definition of "mass produced" in this context? Surely every professional brewery mass produces beer (ie, beer is produced on a production line set up continually. Seasonal beers and small run "specials" are the exception).
The difference is whether the beer is brewed to taste as good as possible, using top class ingredients, or whether it's brewed down to a price, or made to fit some fake advertising angle or market, or produced to be "dead" but easy to handle by unskilled bar operators.
As for leaving politics out of beer (as a previous poster suggested) - rubbish. Whether I choose to drink a certain beer or not depends on the provenance of the brewing company just as much as it does on the taste of the beer itself. I don't want to put money into the pockets of a company that's far more interested in world domination than it is in producing beer, therefore even if InBev (or whatever they're called this week) made a beer really worth drinking, I wouldn't knowingly buy it.
Stonch
You seem to have a thing for all things Czech. You admit that Star is one of the less enjoyable lagers and then admit you drink it. Why? "It's a decent pint," you then say-is there anything you won't drink? I think you've exposed your lack of judgement and experience here. Stick to writing about pubs because obviously your taste threshold is very low.
sam Tana
No,not every professional brewer "mass produces." Professional to me means making a living from it.That could be a guy in a shed.Certainly they're not "production line" producers. And a lot of very large brewers produce Seasonals or one offs. As far as I understood the post, it's referencing brewing on a national/international scale.
I can't believe you've all fallen for another "Lets Get Everyone Talking" piece.Such blatant nonesense is best ignored.
Beer Blokes, you remind me of most of the Aussies I sailed with in my seafaring career - they were the salt of the Earth (or should it be the salt of the sea)! They could smell bullshit at a million miles and always reponded to it humorously.
Keep it up, mate. I hope you read my blog too.
I think I should respond to Terri (and to Tyson's earlier suggestion that I was only trying to "rattle cages"). That isn't true: I mean what I say here. Just because I don't subscribe to the beer geek credo doesn't mean I'm on a wind-up - I just disagree with you. If that provokes discussion, all the better.
I don't think it should be controversial to assert that some beers from big brewers are decent. A beer isn't bad just because it's widely available and popular. You have to judge each on its merits. Fine, you might choose not to drink it because of some political viewpoint - your choice - but you can't tell me it's objectively bad, because in the case of Pilsner Urquell (to use my favourite example) my taste buds tell me different.
Those who react with such hostility to this need to examine why their belief systems are so precious and fragile.
Well I thought it was a wind-up. If it isn't, you're fucking crackers!
Most mainstream products aren't imported with the exception of Guinness which is mainstream, imported and piss poor most of the time.
Could Stonch explain these sentences a bit more please? "Now I find myself applying more experienced taste buds and a better understanding of beer to mainstream products I temporarily dismissed out of hand. What I find are significant qualitative differences that demand attention."
Is that a statement for or against and could we have some examples of mainstream products that shouldn't be dismissed?
Great post, Stonch. Hope it's just not a wind-up. Our fellow geeks who pretend that all mass-produced beers are shit are often the same who reflexively treat taste as an OB-jective thing... As if we would all like the same sorts of beers, if only we had all tried as many as they have.
A good example here in Belgium is Duvel-Moortgat. Local beer cognoscenti dismiss it. And I get dismissed when I suggest that Achouffe's beers may have actually improved since they took over...
Finally: Maybe it's because I'm a young fella, but I'm always skeptical when told that such-and-such beer just isn't the same as it used to be. Could be true, but I find it much more likely that palates and tastes change as we mature.
A good beer is a good beer, and merely scaling up production size doesn't change that. However, what usually happens is that good beer becomes popular, the output of the original brewery isn't large enough to satisfy demand, and so additional capacity is brought on line elsewhere - using a different water, which can massively affect the taste of the finished product.
The alternative is that a mediocre or even poor beer is made popular by advertising it relentlessly to the mugs who fall for the fashion trap.
So, once a beer starts being produced "under licence" in non-original locations, it's gone beyond the pale (ale) and is at best a pretend version of the original - like a tribute band.
I avoid tribute bands, and I avoid fake beers.
Sam Tana, another factor when production scales up is that breweries often alter the recipe in a bid to appeal to a wider range of palates - in other words, less hops for lower bitterness! People say that's what happened to, for example, Deuchars IPA, when it hit the bigtime. I wouldn't know as I first tasted it after it went national.
On the other hand, as Joe says, I'm sceptical of those who claim to remember exactly what a beer tasted like many years ago.
Hmmm, there seem to be a lot of beer snob tickers commenting here. Do these fine gents complain when they get a pint of ale thats past its best, or whinge when their pint is not full to the point of overflowing?
The truth is Stonch is right. In the real world more people drink mass produced beer than micro or craftbrewed beers. Its classic capitalism of people voting with their feet and their wallet. And yes, some mass produced beer is extremely good - Lion Nathans James Squire brand is living proof
Another consideration - Stella Artois. Crap here in Europe but awesome in Australia and New Zealand. The pacific version while being massed produced uses fresh NZ sourced Saaz B hops. Its an excellent beer. However I bet the majority of flamers posting on tghsi thread will dismiss out of hand due to its brand, even though its a completely different beer.
Stonch
Largely I agree with you. However I must pick you up on this:
'but you can't tell me it's objectively bad, because in the case of Pilsner Urquell (to use my favourite example) my taste buds tell me different'
Isn't this the same argument you were having with the S&N reps? Only that time, I believe you were arguing that a beer can be objectively bad!
pubnoscenti: Isn't this the same argument you were having with the S&N reps? Only that time, I believe you were arguing that a beer can be objectively bad!
Quite. And that's why in that post I said my own response made me feel "a bit of a tosser".
Guinness Foreign Extra Stout? Hoegaarden Witbier? You can argue that they don't merit classic status these days, but it'd be wrong to dismiss them as mass-produced shite.
I also recall Tandleman (and others) praising well-kept cask Tetley's.
tandleman also praised hoegaarden so he is in a glass house here
How is this controversial -
Stonch is just saying the big boys can brew a beer that is drinkable and enjoyable.
If you like it drink it. Hardly shocking stuff.
You see this over in the States on the beer boards all the time. A new import hits the shores and it is amazing until it starts to show up in mainstream bars then it is pedestrian and the snobs move on to the next new thing.
Of course we all have differing views on where the good the bad and the ugly begin and end.
WMS and Tom - I haven't taken any point of view here really, though I am sceptical without a definition and some examples. Tetley Bitter and Hoegaarden are examples that sort of work for me, though whether they are mainstream enough to prove Stonch's point is debatable, though you can usually find both with a little effort. I think his own example of PU is debatable too as I certainly don't bump into it every day and everywhere and I kind of thought that at least some of the everyday mass produced beer was what Stonch was saying had merit. The Carling, John Smith type of thing. If it isn't and it is just a few good beers or passable beers in a lot of dross, well OK.
I need some more data before I really know what Stonch had in mind.
Tandleman, I hate having to state the obvious in response to comments - it suggests I write opaquely, and I don't think I do - but for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't saying beers like Carling or John Smith's have any merit.
If it isn't and it is just a few good beers or passable beers in a lot of dross
Yes, I suppose that's more or less what I'm saying, but I'd prefer not to be pinned down to such a simplification when making a general point.
Ah!
Tandleman said: could we have some examples of mainstream products that shouldn't be dismissed?
Has this question been answered at all?
I doubt I have much to add to the debate however I'll give it a bash and I may get a pasting for what I'm about to say but here goes.
I'm not sure I subscribe to the "macro brewed = bad" camp as I enjoy Fullers beers (debate about size acknowledged) and I have enjoyed more than a few bottles of Asahi Beer / lager (that shows my ignorance!) but I have found that the ales I enjoy the most are generally produced on a smaller scale.
There are some beers / lagers produced on a medium to large scale that I find technically perfect but spectacularly uninteresting, for example anything by Theakstons, with the exception of their dark mild, or Paulner Helles or Kuppers Kolsch. This doesn't mean that they're bad beers, they just don't float my boat.
Conversely there are beers brewed on a medium to large scale, such as everything by Jennings, that I find superb. As someone from a largely Yorkshire family I run the risk of being ostracised for saying this but it's the truth.
I'll await the replies to Tandlemans initial question with an open mind and clean palette.
Can anyone suggest something that is truly macro brewed that really floats my boat? Come on there has to be something out there. PU and Star fall into the same category with the Paulner Helles.
John, Pilsner Urquell and Star are the Czech Republic's first and second biggest breweries respectively, and they're owned by the world's first and second biggest multinational brewcos respectively. If that isn't "macro brewed" - or "mass-produced", to use the expression I actually did - I don't know what is.
Stonch,
It IS crap!
Have a good one!
Andy
Stonch - I don't doubt these brews "macro" credentials in the slightest, I've had both these beers before and found neither really interesting.
Is there anything else brewed on this scale that you can think of that is both light hoppy and refreshing?
Post a Comment