Eric Asimov wrote an interesting piece yesterday for the New York Times entitled A Taste for Brews That Go to Extremes. A mix of brewmaster interviews and beer reviews, this is a decent read for those of us interested in the “my beer is hoppier than your beer” movement.
“If one is good, then two is better!”
Such is the ethos of extreme beers, an all-American genre in which brewers are engaged in a constant game of “Can you top this?” Whether using an inordinate amount of traditional ingredients like malt or hops, or adding flavorings undreamed of by Old World brewers, American brewers have created a signature style that beer enthusiasts seem both to love and hate.
I wouldn’t rate myself a traditionalist when it comes to beer, so I don’t take offense at such non-traditional monikers as Double I.P.A. In fact, I rather like several of these hoppier beers. But I can see what Garrett Oliver, brewmaster of the Brooklyn Brewery, is getting at when he calls it “offensive that brewers use terms like double I.P.A. ‘It’s claptrap intended to cloud the illustrious history of the style,’ he said. ‘It’s like calling a wine double Beaujolais — it’s an insult.’”
Do we risk losing our collective beer-making roots if we continually try to brew a bigger, more bitter (or sweeter), more extreme beer? Will we lose the ability to appreciate a simple brown ale or Pilsener after drowning our tastebuds in brews with such hyperbolic names as Ruination IPA and IPA Maximus? Some food for thought indeed. I think I need a beer to help my cogitating. I’m off to the fridge…