Regarding A) Lambic classification being too rigid, I don’t believe that we should be too rigid as to not allow for experimentation and evolution with lambic. That is why I consider Iris to be, more or less, lambic, same with American/canadian brewers who are as true to preserving as high level of quality as possible.
I think this rigid/semi-rigid classification is necessary because, regarding your B) sweet alco-pop drinks with a very small portion of lambic are not and should not be called lambic, IMHO. They contain lambic, but that is about it. They are too sweet, they are not properly attenuated. They are not oak aged, they use artificial sweetners. They are pasteurized.
In short, they possess nearly ZERO qualities of a lambic (other than the very small percentage of lambic in them, which is buried beneath all of the sweetner).
Steve, if I decide to produce a new drink which has 5% traditional English cider and the rest cherry soda, you would fully embrace this as an English Cider??????
|
Private message 
|
Hmm, that is a good question. I shouldnt just spit out what I hear and take it as fact. Maybe someone could trying calling Girardin???
|
Private message
|
Well, I don’t necessarily agree with Dan Shelton on what the interpretation of traditional lambic should be either. There is a line somewhere in there. I’m not the one to draw it, that’s for sure.
I agree with SilkTork when he says Chapeau Kriek should be allowed to call itself a kriek. That’s just a word indicating a cherry beer and has been used in non-lambic beers like Liefmans historically as well. Lambic, on the other hand, has specific characteristics.
Who gets to draw the line? Good question. Should there be a line drawn? Definitely.
|
Private message
|
I would argue that Mr. Shelton’s clear bias makes him not the person to draw the line.
|
Private message
|
The EU at best or the lambic makers themselves would be the only ones capable of actually drawing any lines. Right now, nobody is drawing any lines anywhere, just stating their opinions. Dan’s not allowed to have an opinion? This isn’t North Korea.
|
Private message
|
What he said. This is a VERY small world we’re talking about (lambic connoisseurs); I’ve had mixed feelings about Dan’s article, and they’ve become ever-more confused reading all of these (mostly very intelligent) responses...but honestly, if there are just a handful of traditional lambic producers, and just an equal handful of "professional" writers that are really interested in what’s going on, why shouldn’t Dan Shelton, even if he is an importer with some admitted professional/business bias, have a say? I’m pretty well convinced from all I’ve read that the reasons he’s championing the beers he mentions are legit, and have little or nothing to do with feathering his pocketbook. How much money is there in Cantillon or Girardin in the USA? Can’t be that much.
The more information, the more eye-openings we get, the better. Hooray for Eric Asimov and the NY Times bringing a little bit of knowledge to the wealthy masses...hooray for Dan Shelton, and Clark and Joris and everyone else here bringing more knowledge to the less-ignorant fanatics. Thank you all.
|
Private message
|
Here is some elaboration from Dan Shelton stolen blatantly from BA:
I’m not sure that I can agree with his claim that "It’s just that their (Cantillon, Drie Fonteinen and De Cam’s) methods are, clearly, the closest to the methods of lambic producers, say, 50 years ago – before all sorts of new science and technology were introduced into brewing." Isn’t Drie Fonteinen’s cellar temperature-controlled? That seems like a big deviation from 50 years ago to me. And I was under the impression (can’t recall where I read it but will check) that Armand Debelder specifically tried to blend a "softer" gueuze, which is exactly what Shelton rails against.
I know taste is a funny thing, but when he makes the "softer-drinkable/harder-traditional" distinction, my own tastes buds do not agree at all. I’d put Girardin, De Cam, Boon, Mort Subite, Oud Beersel and Drie Fonteinen’s oude gueuzes in the "softer" category and Cantillon, Hanssens and De Troch’s in the "harder" one.
|
Private message
|
The "softer/harder" thing is tricky...I’d tend to agree with you generally (though I’ve had only one De Cam, and only one De Troch and that years ago) and when put that way I guess I’m a "softy". I appreciate and love Cantillon...but it’s not often that I can drink one. If I’m craving lambic, I’m craving Girardin Black label thank you very much, not Cantillon Gueuze (sorry Clark). But "less traditional"? I think that only matters up to a point. If there are only two "fully traditional" lambic brewers/blenders out there, and the rest are just shit, I’m not sure how long we’re going to hold on to this wonderful tradition. I’m as uncompromising at heart and in thought as anyone, about an awful lot of aspects of culture...but down to the nitty gritty, I love Girardin and Hanssens as much as anything else out there and "soft" or no, we have to just accept that Cantillon is only for the very, very select few...let’s be at least a little accepting of those that aren’t perfect?
|
Private message
|
No offense meant or taken, B., but may I respectfully point out that I’ve WELL kept out of these shouting matches, on Ratebeer, on the Babble Belt and on BeerAdvocate?
And if you really want to get an idea what might restrain me, I suggest you take a look on the Babble Belt now.
Joris
|
Private message
|
that’s a "straw man" argument at best. of course he’s "allowed" to have, express, advocate, etc, an opinion. "having an opinion" isn’t "drawing a line"
that "North Korea" line is completely uncalled for.
|
Private message
|
|
