Originally posted by SilkTork
Dan Shelton may have gone on to explain himself in more detail, and I’m sure he knows a lot more about lambic than I do - but at that point it felt like I was having an enthusiastic and less than accurate assertion ramned down my throat by someone who was perhaps more passionate than thorough. I can well see why most (all?) of Shelton’s emailed information didn’t make it into the New York Times article. The information is unreliable.
I don’t see this as any different from your posts on scottish ales in the american homebrew styles vs. rest of the world thread. How is his information any more unreliable? Sure the arguing over what constitutes a "traditional" or "real" lambic is somewhat pedantic, but that’s really no different from arguing over what constitutes a "scottish" ale, or whether or not scottish brewers historically used less hops, fermented at lower temperatures...etc.
I’ll agree with you that the NYT is probably not the place for this, excepting the food & wine letters to the editor(does that even exist?), but that’s exactly what I’d like to see in an article on ratebeer. Maybe I’m misreading your post and that is what you meant. (For the record I found your scottish ale posts informative and think you’re a reliable source, silk) |
Well he certainly can get people going with his opinions. |
Originally posted by puzzl
I quite enjoyed the article and am looking forward to the coming few. I think lambic and lambic production are extremely interesting topics.
Originally posted by Dan Shelton
The only producers of lambic beers that are consistently making authentic, natural products are Cantillon, Drie Fonteinen, and De Cam (which is not available in the U.S.). One or two of the beers of Girardin and Hanssens are, well, mostly traditional. As for the rest – as they say, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.
I’m hoping he will expand upon this and go into more depth about what makes Girardin and Hanssens "mostly traditional." Also, there is no mention of Oude Beersel and Lindemans Cuvee Rene. Where do those fit in? And isn’t Drie Fonteinen just a blender?
yeah, I hope he is decent and fair enough to talk about beers he doesn’t already sell (Cantillon and Drie Fonteinen) in other than denigrating terms (i.e. somewhat traditional)
otherwise, he is just a saleman hawking his wares. |
|
|
Originally posted by irishsnake
yeah, I hope he is decent and fair enough to talk about beers he doesn’t already sell (Cantillon and Drie Fonteinen) in other than denigrating terms (i.e. somewhat traditional)
oops - "mostly traditional" |
I enjoyed the NY Times column as well as Dan Shelton’s article. I thought that Asimov presented Lambics, including the fakes, in an acceptable manor. More importantly, he may have inspired some wine drinkers to try a good beer.
I agree with most of what Dan Shelton had to say about Lambics. Filtering, pasteurizing and residual sugars are evil. However, I don’t care if the bacteria strains are cultured in a lab and the inoculation is controled. Lambic brewers in the 17th century would have done the same if they knew how. It doesn’t change the flavor of the beer, only our romantic vision of it. Bugs are bugs, it doesn’t matter how they got there, as long as they came to party. |
Originally posted by Degarth
Originally posted by fly
Originally posted by Degarth
articulate response
Apparently you missed the message stating that all members MUST respond with impassioned, thorned, barbed, stinging, furious or infuriating replies. Please delete response and try again.
Oh.
Dan Shelton should legally be allowed to rip Asimov’s spine out with a sharpened monkey wrench for the foul crime of including non-traditional Lambics in the same article as traditional Lambics.
Furthermore, makers of non-traditional Lambics should be forced to walk the streets of Iran, naked, with tatoos of Allah festooned about their bodies.
well, traditional as per he-who-sells them, eh? |
Asimov’s article (and accompanying video) seemed balanced to me.
So what if one of the lambics Asimov liked was Chapeau Banana. I have no problem with that (but maybe that’s because I don’t import Chapeau’s competitors). |
|
|
I read Asimov’s article when it came out and enjoyed certain parts, mainly the opening about dismissing the notion that beer drinkers are not sophisticated.
But that’s about it. I found the treatment of the lambic to be pretty subpar at best.
I think it’s sad that Chapeau and Lindemans were even dignified as lambic, and I’m glad Dan Shelton spoke up against it. I thought the little, token blurb about "some don’t consider these real lambics" was pathetic and I’m glad Shelton harassed the hell out of him to at least get him to write that.
I don’t understand the whole debate over whether Dan is on here to talk about lambic, or just sell his product. He’s on here to push true lambic. Be that helping to get less people to buy Lindemans, chapeau, cherish, de troch, etc.. or buying more Cantillon.
I think it’s awesome that he’s passionate about it’s kind of sad to see this response from Ratebeer, questioning his motives, questioning the phrase "traditional lambic", etc...
It’s a fu**ing travesty that that garbage that Cherish makes is considered to be anything like lambic. It’s also sad that that Asimov gave Cantillon and Drie Fonteinen oude gueuzes 3 stars out of 4. If I really cared more what he thought, or thought it actually made any difference to anyone, I’d be sending him some emails too. |
Originally posted by austinpowers
Asimov’s article (and accompanying video) seemed balanced to me.
So what if one of the lambics Asimov liked was Chapeau Banana. I have no problem with that (but maybe that’s because I don’t import Chapeau’s competitors).
A wonderful cheap shot. Where in Dan’s article does he try to force Cantillon on anyone?? His points are correct about Oude lambic as he states them.
I have a problem with the fact that Asimov liked Chapeau Banana.
If he wrote an article saying Bud Lite was a great beer, everyone on here, would have a problem with it. There’s no difference here.
I came on Ratebeer because I wanted to be part of a community that helped educate people to artisanal beer, not a community that shrugged their shoulders (at best) when someone wrote a major article touting Chapeau Banana or apricot or whatever nasty crap it was. |
I think both articles are great, though I could have used less criticism of the Asimov article by Shelton; the main point as I see it is that the Times is geared towards a mainstream, if well-educated audience, and Asimov is writing essentially for people that may be curious, are willing to spend more than $12/case on beer, and already have a somewhat well-developed palate for wine, food, etc. I really appreciate him because he doesn’t really talk down to peopel though he doesn’t assume huge knowledge either; a difficult balancing act that he usually performs with aplomb. I’m not a huge wine expert, but my impression is that his wine articles are written in largely the same way with the same type of audience in mind. We should all be thankful that writers as good as he is can get away with expounding upon beer once a month in a 2 million circulation publication.
Shelton is writing for us, a completely different audience; he could never publish what he wrote in any daily newspaper, and probably not in any months brewspaper either. He’s got very "extreme" and one-sided views, and thank god for them and that he has a place to air them, just as SilkTork, Oakes and many other have aired their pithy sometimes condescending or pretentious but always passionate views in the past. Many of us are elitist snobs here (I know I am) so this is the place for such articles. I too am a bit concerned about his words about Girardin and Hanssens -- I’ve loved all of the products I’ve managed to get from both -- but really, so what if he "proves" that they are "less traditional" or not traditional at all? I’ll never drink more Cantillon Geueuze than I do Girardin Black Label, but I’ll have fun reading his arguments... |
