Lambic, A topic of discussion…

Reads 15048 • Replies 101 • Started Monday, May 15, 2006 12:07:31 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message irishsnake beers 355 º places 1 º 20:11 Mon 5/15/2006 Originally posted by ClarkVV 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... why shouldn’t the motives of a salesman be questioned when his "informative article" also serves to point out the "superiority", or traditional-ness, of beers that put money in his pocket? or should we just accept everything we read? I would certainly have appreciated a more prominent disclaimer - and I think I’m not alone in that. and I was also pretty pleased with the Asimov article - really quite good for the main-stream press. why does Mr. Shelton have to bash it?
Message muzzlehatch beers 4975 º places 327 º 20:16 Mon 5/15/2006 Originally posted by ClarkVV 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 understand what you’re saying, but I just don’t agree; even the de Troch stuff is a little more worthy of love than Budweiser, and I don’t have a real problem with Asimov mentioning it. I don’t think on the whole this was the best of his beer articles, but I’ll say it again: who else is writing about beer AT ALL other than as a commodity in US nationally-read media? So he’s a B-level advocate in my book (and maybe a C-level in yours)...so what? As much as I’ve liked your articles and reviews Clark, and as much as I’ve enjoyed reading the Sheltons’ blog and this article, I don’t think you’d have a prayer of getting published writing like that anywhere but on the Internet. I’m not talking quality of writing -- I’m talking geekiness. You and Dan and all the rest of us are writing for our given audience, Asimov is writing for the Times’. I think he could perhaps have done a little better job articulating why the fruity stuff is crap and why you should, whether you like Chapeau/Cherish etc or not, try the more authentic stuff -- but OVERALL I think his articles, this one included are having a positive effect (if they’re having any) on beer writing in the mainstream media. If you’re asking for more, you’re living in utopia my friend.
Message mullet beers 849 º places 230 º 20:36 Mon 5/15/2006 What I want to know is why he considers those three to be the only "authentic" products. Without offering an explanation, the article smacks of a conflict of interest. For the most part the article didn’t really say anything particularly new, and then that last paragraph makes a rather large statement with zero explanation for his claim. So what makes De Cam Oude Gueuze more "authentic" than Hanssens Oude Gueuze, for instance?

Message ClarkVV P beers 13457 º places 111 º 20:39 Mon 5/15/2006 Good point, good points, both Muzzlehatch and Irishsnake. Irishsnake: That’s true, his views should be questioned, just as anyone else, but I guess in my mind, he is correct here. I’m not advocating mindlessly accepting things you read from big name beer people, far from it, but I just don’t see, why after initially posing the question "Are his motives to push real lambic or to make more money?" that any of us could come away believing the latter. Part of the reason Dan is in the business (most of the reason, actually), is because he is so passionate about these beers and wants to see them succeed. Just because he stands to make money off of increased Cantillon, et al, sales, does not mean that he can not write an objective article, and write it because he truly believes what he is saying, not because he wants more money. I think that I get too fired up because I know Dan and know his motives are just to do whatever he can to get more exposure for this wonderful drink. But I need to not assume that just because I know this, everyone else knows it. So I apologize for that. And Barry, yes, you’re right, my views are more suited to "an ideal beer geek world". Maybe he dosent have to push as extreme of views as Dan Shelton, but I still don’t understand and don’t think I will ever, what appeal he found in Chapeau and why he chose to make this nearly a centerpiece in his article. I guess I just get frustrated because the article, like you say, is geared towards an educated mainstream audience. And so many articles in the NYT are cerebral and very intelligent. I would have liked to have seen his article be a little less mainstream, and a little more authentic-lambic oriented. But again, that might just not be realistic.
Message mdi beers 573 º places 15 º 20:40 Mon 5/15/2006 Originally posted by mullet What I want to know is why he considers those three to be the only "authentic" products. Without offering an explanation, the article smacks of a conflict of interest. For the most part the article didn’t really say anything particularly new, and then that last paragraph makes a rather large statement with zero explanation for his claim. So what makes De Cam Oude Gueuze more "authentic" than Hanssens Oude Gueuze, for instance? I think you missed the part where he said "over the next few weeks." This is simply an introduction, and there will be more to follow that will shed light on this. Cheers matt
Message muzzlehatch beers 4975 º places 327 º 20:44 Mon 5/15/2006 Originally posted by ClarkVV Good point, good points, both Muzzlehatch and Irishsnake. Irishsnake: That’s true, his views should be questioned, just as anyone else, but I guess in my mind, he is correct here. I’m not advocating mindlessly accepting things you read from big name beer people, far from it, but I just don’t see, why after initially posing the question "Are his motives to push real lambic or to make more money?" that any of us could come away believing the latter. Part of the reason Dan is in the business (most of the reason, actually), is because he is so passionate about these beers and wants to see them succeed. Just because he stands to make money off of increased Cantillon, et al, sales, does not mean that he can not write an objective article, and write it because he truly believes what he is saying, not because he wants more money. I think that I get too fired up because I know Dan and know his motives are just to do whatever he can to get more exposure for this wonderful drink. But I need to not assume that just because I know this, everyone else knows it. So I apologize for that. And Barry, yes, you’re right, my views are more suited to "an ideal beer geek world". Maybe he dosent have to push as extreme of views as Dan Shelton, but I still don’t understand and don’t think I will ever, what appeal he found in Chapeau and why he chose to make this nearly a centerpiece in his article. I guess I just get frustrated because the article, like you say, is geared towards an educated mainstream audience. And so many articles in the NYT are cerebral and very intelligent. I would have liked to have seen his article be a little less mainstream, and a little more authentic-lambic oriented. But again, that might just not be realistic. Thanks for the comments Clark...yeah we all get pretty damn passionate don’t we? I think we can all agree that Asimov and Shelton each have their places as beer writers, as critic and importer. The conflict-of-interest thing I guess occured to me but I must say I didn’t think too much about it; how much more money would the Sheltons make if they had the rights to import Girardin? Not much. I don’t think it gains them anything bad-mouthing other traditional or semi-traditional lambic makers, and I don’t think Dan was writing any of that for selfish reasons, personally. But maybe a disclaimer wouldn’t have hurt. Can’t wait for Part II! Now off to the cellar for that Chapeau Exotic....
Message mullet beers 849 º places 230 º 21:00 Mon 5/15/2006 Originally posted by matt_dinges I think you missed the part where he said "over the next few weeks." This is simply an introduction, and there will be more to follow that will shed light on this. Cheers matt Whoops! I’m a bit stupid some times... I’ll certainly be reading his subsequent articles with great interest.

Message mdi beers 573 º places 15 º 21:07 Mon 5/15/2006 Originally posted by irishsnake Originally posted by ClarkVV 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... why shouldn’t the motives of a salesman be questioned when his "informative article" also serves to point out the "superiority", or traditional-ness, of beers that put money in his pocket? or should we just accept everything we read? I would certainly have appreciated a more prominent disclaimer - and I think I’m not alone in that. and I was also pretty pleased with the Asimov article - really quite good for the main-stream press. why does Mr. Shelton have to bash it? In Dan’s mind, yes, obviously Cantillon & Drie Fonteinen are superior to the alco-pops. I agree completely with that too...but I don’t see the article here as being questionable. Dan speaks at length with not only the brewers he imports, but with other brewers as well(Frank Boon for one). He gets his information from the sources(Yvan De Baets as well), not from marketing people or the rumor mill. Obviously, he’d love it if Cantillon was out selling Lindeman’s...but you see, that isn’t really possible from a production stand point...and I think you’ll see that explained in future posts. It isn’t just luck or coincidence that he imports traditional lambics. It is because he truly loves them and believes they should be shared. Shelton Brothers are champions of artisinal products by choice. I think that should be considered before you start calling him simply a "salesman." I don’t read his comments about Asimov’s article as "bashing" rather, exasperbation! Cantillon was the first beer Shelton Brothers imported. Actually, it was the_reason_they started the business since they couldn’t buy it in the US. As a guy that has spent 10 years educating and promoting traditional lambic, I can understand the frustration when the NYT times finally takes some notice, and then gives big play to the manufactured industrial stuff. I cringed at the rating of Chapeu too... Check out the acknowledgements in both Brew Like a Monk & Farmhouse Ales...Dan Shelton is listed in both, but not because he is a salesman. I think this article, but more so the stuff that we’ll hopefully see over the next month or 2, will be quite informative for those that are really interested in what is in the beers they are drinking and how they are made. I’m looking forward to it! Cheers matt
Message DYCSoccer17 beers 3746 º places 344 º 21:08 Mon 5/15/2006 For those of you who think Dan Shelton is drumming up hype over Cantillon and Drie Font. so he can make money solely, you are entirely wrong. Those products are for the most part pretty small cogs in their beer-importation portfolio. They make their money off a hell of a lot of other beers that they bring in. He is just being a passionate guy who has an old-school mentality when it comes to lambic. He’s not trying to MAKE people like HIS lambic so he will make money. Most people won’t even like the traditional lambic. The guy is just giving his opinion, which is probably more educated than most beer and lambic lovers.
Message irishsnake beers 355 º places 1 º 21:14 Mon 5/15/2006 I appreciate that Mr. Shelton is an advocate for artisinal products. as an industry professional, I hold myself to a high standard on anything I post on any beer-related board, anywhere, to avoid even an appearance of conflict-of-interest. I believe Mr. Shelton could have done a better job in that regard. and I do think his negativity toward the Asimov article is easily read, and inappropriate.