Lambic, A topic of discussion…

Reads 15047 • 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 SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 01:53 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by matta I too am very passionate about the term “Lambic” with its old world imagery and magical story of how the beer was crafted. I am a strong believer that like a true Trappest brewery, there should be a consumer symbol to identify only Traditional Lambics and only those that brew in a determined Traditional style should be able to call themselves Lambics. All others are Lambic imposters and should be called “Lambic Styled” or “Fruit Beer.” Best, Matt A. The history of beer is a history of change and development. Lambic itself has been part of that history and development. I am very interested in unique and ancient beers - such as Cauim and Chicha (both beers likely to be much older than lambic - and both, it seems, quite unchanged) - but I am also interested in how beers develop. It interests me that in the UK we have hundreds of beers called IPA which are under 4% and not very hoppy. The most famous IPA in the UK is not an American hop monster, but an inoffensive session bitter - Greene King IPA. That Greene King IPA bears no relation to AleSmith IPA is interesting, but is it really a cause for bed wetting and rattle throwing? Will the people who drink and enjoy Alesmith IPA suddenly get confused and switch allegience to Greene King IPA instead? Commercial cider bears to relation to farm cider. French cider bears no relation to English cider. Will people get confused and buy the wrong products? Do any of the lambic products even need to have the name "lambic" on the bottle? What difference does it make? Does Guinness Draught and Guinness Original have the name Stout or Porter on the label or keg font? No. Have I lost the point of what I am saying? Yes.
Message JoeMcPhee P beers 12096 º places 543 º 06:12 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by SilkTork Originally posted by matta I too am very passionate about the term “Lambic” with its old world imagery and magical story of how the beer was crafted. I am a strong believer that like a true Trappest brewery, there should be a consumer symbol to identify only Traditional Lambics and only those that brew in a determined Traditional style should be able to call themselves Lambics. All others are Lambic imposters and should be called “Lambic Styled” or “Fruit Beer.” Best, Matt A. The history of beer is a history of change and development. Lambic itself has been part of that history and development. I am very interested in unique and ancient beers - such as Cauim and Chicha (both beers likely to be much older than lambic - and both, it seems, quite unchanged) - but I am also interested in how beers develop. It interests me that in the UK we have hundreds of beers called IPA which are under 4% and not very hoppy. The most famous IPA in the UK is not an American hop monster, but an inoffensive session bitter - Greene King IPA. That Greene King IPA bears no relation to AleSmith IPA is interesting, but is it really a cause for bed wetting and rattle throwing? Will the people who drink and enjoy Alesmith IPA suddenly get confused and switch allegience to Greene King IPA instead? Commercial cider bears to relation to farm cider. French cider bears no relation to English cider. Will people get confused and buy the wrong products? Do any of the lambic products even need to have the name "lambic" on the bottle? What difference does it make? Does Guinness Draught and Guinness Original have the name Stout or Porter on the label or keg font? No. Have I lost the point of what I am saying? Yes. Yes, you are right, but we are not average beer drinkers or consumers. We can make these distinctions without the need for only the information on the label, but that is not so for the average person. An average person in a bottle shop sees IPA and thinks hoppy and bitter, at least in North America. Our perceptions are shaped by our choices. If there’s an article in the Times about lambic beer, then people are going to associate all of them with that name. How many of us knew the difference before we started drinking them and reading about them? I think Asimov did a very good job of pointing out the differences and explaining the controversy. It isn’t his job to say this is or isn’t a "real" lambic. On the other hand, I can understand why people would be upset, but you can’t change the fact that the sweet Lindemans beers are labelled as lambics. Maybe we don’t think they should be, but that isn’t going to change it.
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 06:47 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by JoeMcPhee Originally posted by SilkTork Originally posted by matta I too am very passionate about the term “Lambic” with its old world imagery and magical story of how the beer was crafted. I am a strong believer that like a true Trappest brewery, there should be a consumer symbol to identify only Traditional Lambics and only those that brew in a determined Traditional style should be able to call themselves Lambics. All others are Lambic imposters and should be called “Lambic Styled” or “Fruit Beer.” Best, Matt A. Do any of the lambic products even need to have the name "lambic" on the bottle? Yes, you are right, but we are not average beer drinkers or consumers. We can make these distinctions without the need for only the information on the label, but that is not so for the average person. An average person in a bottle shop sees IPA and thinks hoppy and bitter, at least in North America. Our perceptions are shaped by our choices. If there’s an article in the Times about lambic beer, then people are going to associate all of them with that name. How many of us knew the difference before we started drinking them and reading about them? I think Asimov did a very good job of pointing out the differences and explaining the controversy. It isn’t his job to say this is or isn’t a "real" lambic. On the other hand, I can understand why people would be upset, but you can’t change the fact that the sweet Lindemans beers are labelled as lambics. Maybe we don’t think they should be, but that isn’t going to change it. I think the idea that a beer can be narrowed down in flavour profile and then stamped with a name and be forbidden to ever change or deviate is based on the BJCP style guides. As a brewing competition activity such narrow focus is helpful - but once outside of the brewing competition arena then it becomes less helpful.

Message heykevin beers 1281 º 07:10 Wed 5/17/2006 One way I look at this is as follows: Take for example the case of pilsner. The word doesn’t mean anything anymore. I would prefer that the same fate doesn’t fall to lambic. I think in many ways something along the lines of DOC for lambic would be a good thing. This doesn’t mean people can’t experiment or try new things, new fruits, new techniques, but then it shouldn’t be labelled "oude gueuze" or whatever. But then I’m pedantic when it comes to labelling. I want american brewers to use "belgian-style" or "german-style" when labelling their (either or faithful or loose) interpretations of old world beer styles. Even though I think it stinks, Huyge Minty is belgian, while hennepin is belgian-style, even though I think a heck of a lot more of it. This is a good discussion... cheers, Kevin
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 07:13 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by SilkTork I think the idea that a beer can be narrowed down in flavour profile and then stamped with a name and be forbidden to ever change or deviate... That’s if I’m getting the gist of Shelton’s and Matta’s argument correct? It looks to me like they are unhappy that there is some deviation of flavour in beers called lambic - and what they want is the beers they don’t like the flavour of not to be called lambic - thus narrowing the flavour profile. Or have I got it wrong?
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 07:19 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by hey_kevin Take for example the case of pilsner. The word doesn’t mean anything anymore. It does - it means a pale lager. There are some people who like to think that a pilsner is a pale lager which is hoppier than another pale lager. But that is really getting into such a narrow focus. One brewery’s "Brewery X Lager" could be hoppier than another brewery’s "Brewery Y Pilsner". Constantly narrowing the flavour profile of beers, and then demanding that brewers make all beers within that narrow flavour profile is not doing anyone any favours.
Message mdi beers 573 º places 15 º 07:38 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by SilkTork Originally posted by SilkTork I think the idea that a beer can be narrowed down in flavour profile and then stamped with a name and be forbidden to ever change or deviate... That’s if I’m getting the gist of Shelton’s and Matta’s argument correct? It looks to me like they are unhappy that there is some deviation of flavour in beers called lambic - and what they want is the beers they don’t like the flavour of not to be called lambic - thus narrowing the flavour profile. Or have I got it wrong? My "guess" (I can’t speak for them) is that you do have it wrong. The deviation that they are concerned with is the process and the ingredients, not the flavor per se. Beers that are sweetened and have lab yeast in them aren’t "lambic." You can taste it in the beer, yes...but its more than flavor that is the issue. Cheers matt

Message DCopperfields beers 146 º 08:14 Wed 5/17/2006 My take on Dan’s article is this: there is nothing inherantly wrong with having beers made with fruit juice, or even sweet beers. In fact, Dan imports from France a framboise that resembles a Boon beer in taste and character, to some degree, but nowhere does he or the beers packaging suggest that the beer is lambic. I think Dan still has a high regard for the beer and the brewer, despite the fact that the beer is probably flavored and sweetened with fruit juices. Still, the historical inference that beers from the 3rd century BC were lambics or even lambic like because they happened to result from the serendipitious use of wild yeasts is spurious at best. All alcoholic beverages of the time, and for a long time afterward were made from wild, air-borne yeasts as far as I know. ’Course, I could be wrong not being an expert myself either.
Message Oakes P admin beers 30680 º places 1135 º 08:54 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by SilkTork Constantly narrowing the flavour profile of beers, and then demanding that brewers make all beers within that narrow flavour profile is not doing anyone any favours. Then you’d be okay with Stella and Budweiser being called "real ale"? After all, no need to keep things unnecessarily narrow. In fact, words really shouldn’t have definitions at all. Travel so rabbit bland fart argh Norwegian rummage.
Message irishsnake beers 355 º places 1 º 09:24 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Oakes Then you’d be okay with Stella and Budweiser being called "real ale"? After all, no need to keep things unnecessarily narrow. In fact, words really shouldn’t have definitions at all. Travel so rabbit bland fart argh Norwegian rummage. ah, but who gets to define the words? a poorly researched salesman/enthusiast?