Lambic, A topic of discussion…

Reads 15044 • 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 ClarkVV P beers 13457 º places 111 º 12:01 Wed 5/17/2006 Girardin is only "mostly traditional" because it does not use a 3 year old lambic in its blend of the gueuze. This makes the flavor much more round and approachable. Though I don’t know why Dan would be bothered by this, since a number of Cantillons are only "mostly traditional" (lou pepe line, cuvee des champions, etc). Anyways, I’m much less concerned about applying the word lambic to any beer that is at least 100% spontaneously fermented. I think that past that, lambic should be allowed to develop, but I do think that beers that are not 100% should not be allowed to be called lambic. I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Message TAR beers 2821 º places 34 º 12:02 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Schroppfy Originally posted by TAR One question: What if you do all the aging and blending, but the beer is brewed off premise? Are you still to be considered traditional? Wouldn’t that be De Cam? I think Dan’s answer would be completely yes. Yeah, but it would also be Hanssens, whom he refers to as "mostly traditional." Or is it something else he’s referring to (e.g. the alleged sweetening) that makes Hanssens not so traditional. Sorry, I’m just confused is all.
Message heykevin beers 1281 º 12:18 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by ClarkVV Anyways, I’m much less concerned about applying the word lambic to any beer that is at least 100% spontaneously fermented. Is there a way to be more than 100% spontaneously fermented? cheers, smartass_kevin

Message JorisPPattyn P admin beers 14322 º places 93 º 12:39 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by hey_kevin Originally posted by JorisPPattyn He did list De Cam as traditional even though they are strictly blenders. cheerio, Kevin So? Ah, I see now. Quite so, sorry.[:8] I said this in reference to this part of Jeff’s comment: Perhaps Hanssens is "mostly traditional" because they do not brew the beer themselves?
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 12:59 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by matt_dinges but its more than flavor that is the issue. I understand what you’re saying. A beer with a story is more interesting than a beer that doesn’t have a story. I agree with that. And looking back at Shelton’s article he does say in his sentence: "How could anyone even compare that simple, sweet, soda-pop-like stuff to the real article, the beers that justly lay claim to the ancient tradition and romance of lambic brewing?" But that argument gets confused for me with the related but slightly different argument about flavour. And I think I focused on the flavour side of things. I actually like the sweet lambics he doesn’t like. And while I love ancient traditions and romance - I also like modern developments. That there is some of the romance and allure of the lambic story present in the modern sweet lambics is rather apealing to me, and to others like me that enjoy those sweet soda-pop beers. An attractive flavour AND a romantic history. Great. If I take the implications in your posting, you are suggesting that Shelton is not happy that the sweet soda-pop beers have taken a little bit of the lambic romance. He feels that these beers should not share in that story. In the same way that the American "Scottish Ale" and "IPA" should not claim a history that is not true? Or that modern Porter should not claim a heritage back to the 18th century Porter. Or that Old Ale and Mild ale should be renamed because the Old Ale is no longer old, and the Mild is no longer fresher and younger and less sour than the rest of the beers. Beer naming is confusing because it does evolve and change. I agree that people should not be misled and given false information (which is where I came in to this debate, because it appeared to me that Shelton was misleading people and giving out false information) - but at what point are people being misled about lambic? I am getting the sense of what might be at the heart of this issue - and people may be thinking I am being a bit blonde about this because it’s obvious to everyone else, but lambic is not something I have given much thought to.
Message Oakes P admin beers 30678 º places 1135 º 13:04 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Joeh Originally posted by Oakes 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. That’s a rather spurious comment Oakes. Real ale refers to the way beer is produced and served rather than a specific style, as you know. As is lambic. You are aware of course that within lambic there are many styles - gueuze, lambic, kriek, faro, etc. SilkTork argues that we shouldn’t be hung up on the definition of the word lambic, that being hung up on a traditional meaning and not tolerating any movement of that meaning is a bad thing. That is no different than the term "real ale". Nobody is saying you can’t brew Lindeman’s Kriek, the point is that it is no more lambic than Budweiser is real ale. Language drifts, yes. This drift is being conducted deliberately by marketers acting in self-interest rather than over the natural passage of time. That’s a big difference between where I see SilkTork as going with his argument and the lambic situation. You can give a certain name to anything in the universe, but when that name is being misused it loses meaning. In the case of things like real ale and lambic this has direct impacts on consumer behaviour and a quality product is put at risk. The issue of what the definition of lambic should be and who is qualified to set that definition is a different question entirely. But there is no doubt that the word is being misused. There is a point where the misuse is clear. Maybe that point is going to be different for different people. They can work that out amongst themselves, and are. But certainly anybody who doesn’t think Budweiser should be called real ale can see that De Troch can make and sell all the banana hats they want, but they should not call them lambic.
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 13:56 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Oakes 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"? I know what you’re saying, but first I have to comment on your example. The short answer is that yes, I’d be OK with that. Real Ale is a CAMRA term - it’s not a term I use. It’s a restrictive term, rather like the Reinheitsgebot. Now if you’d said cask ale or live ale or bottle conditioned ale, which is what I think you intended, then there’s the start of a discussion. But it would of course depend on the circumstances of you making that statement, and your intention. If you had made a mistake then my response would be a little different than if you were making some point about the nature of those beers. But all this is just playing around. Your point is that we call beer beer and we call wine wine - and there are definitions which allow us to identify which is which. Your point is that Shelton is saying that lambic is lambic and the sweet soda-pop beer is not lambic. My comments initially were about Shelton’s historical research, but I’ve been drawn into the wider discussion on the nature of lambic. As is known I love such discussions, but as I’ve also said, I know little about lambic, so my thoughts and comments in this area are going to be very speculative. I got into the area of speculation in response to Matta’s: "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.” I was thinking out loud this morning before shooting off to work. There was something about Matta’s statement that I felt umcomfortable with. I rambled a bit, looking for why I felt uncomfortable. Then, later, I wondered if it was because there was a restrictive quality to what Matta was saying. That he was suggesting there were aspects of brewing Lambic that we should identify in the same way that BJCP identifies beer competition categories. That lambic brewing methods and practises should have a Reinheitsgebot imposed upon it, and that developments which certain judges/guardians didn’t like would not be allowed. My feeling was that I didn’t like the idea. I felt the idea was rather restrictive. I like the imaginative fluidity of some brewers who dare to experiment with ingredients that some find shocking. Syrup! O my gosh! Anyway. That was where I was. Even though I feel I am getting closer to understanding Matta’s thinking due to matt_dinges comment, I am still not quite there yet. I don’t have a problem with Greene King calling a session bitter an IPA. Nor with Alesmith calling a beer soaked in American hops an IPA. I do, however, have a problem when either brewer makes a claim (as they do) that their beer is in any way related to the beer that was sent out to India. Is the implication that when a brewer calls a sweet soda-pop beer a lambic that the beer is .... what? What is it that is wrong with a brewer calling Chapeau Kriek a kriek? It’s a variation - a development of a kriek. In the same way that brewers push the envelope with stouts and strong ales and other beers. I’m thinking here, but I’m still missing the essential point of the objection.

Message Joeh beers 2049 º places 49 º 14:15 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Oakes Originally posted by Joeh Originally posted by Oakes 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. That’s a rather spurious comment Oakes. Real ale refers to the way beer is produced and served rather than a specific style, as you know. As is lambic. You are aware of course that within lambic there are many styles - gueuze, lambic, kriek, faro, etc. SilkTork argues that we shouldn’t be hung up on the definition of the word lambic, that being hung up on a traditional meaning and not tolerating any movement of that meaning is a bad thing. That is no different than the term "real ale". Nobody is saying you can’t brew Lindeman’s Kriek, the point is that it is no more lambic than Budweiser is real ale. Language drifts, yes. This drift is being conducted deliberately by marketers acting in self-interest rather than over the natural passage of time. That’s a big difference between where I see SilkTork as going with his argument and the lambic situation. You can give a certain name to anything in the universe, but when that name is being misused it loses meaning. In the case of things like real ale and lambic this has direct impacts on consumer behaviour and a quality product is put at risk. The issue of what the definition of lambic should be and who is qualified to set that definition is a different question entirely. But there is no doubt that the word is being misused. There is a point where the misuse is clear. Maybe that point is going to be different for different people. They can work that out amongst themselves, and are. But certainly anybody who doesn’t think Budweiser should be called real ale can see that De Troch can make and sell all the banana hats they want, but they should not call them lambic. Yes, I agree with nearly all of this. I believe the Lindemans fruit beers are so sweet and fruity that they lack anything that links them lambic and are more closely related to alcopops. Apparently though there is at least some lambic in there, the producer makes a gueuze and they have a considerable following even among members of this site. I would argue that there is more separating Budweiser and cask ales but it isn’t particularly important. I agree that the Chapeaus and Lindemans have no place calling their beers lambic, but the article seemed to be suggesting that the term lambic needed even protecting from the likes of Girardin, Hanssens and Boon. It’s when you start excluding these producers because they don’t fall into a narrow view of lambic that problems arise. Oh, and I think more people are put off lambic by the harsh dryness Cantillon than any of the commercial producers, no matter which we prefer. I am caught here between generally agreeing with Silktork’s position and my distain of sugary lambics.
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 14:22 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Oakes The issue of what the definition of lambic should be and who is qualified to set that definition is a different question entirely. But there is no doubt that the word is being misused. I’m certainly not qualified to set the definition. And that’s not my involvement here. My questioning is about the notion of an inflexible attitude to the definition. I’m just a little uncomfortable with the idea of rigid, inflexible definitions - especially with regard to an evolving and developing product such as beer. To avoid confusion, this is my involvement in this thread: A) I object to Shelton’s lack of scholarship in regard to lambic’s history. That objection appears to be uncontested. B) I am uncomfortable about a rigid and inflexible restriction of any beer production method. This discomfort appears to be shared by some, but not by others. C) I am a little uncertain about the true nature of Shelton’s objections to Chapeau lambics being termed lambic - though I am getting close to an understanding. Some people appear to feel that his objections are based on self-interest. I want to make it clear that I do not share that thought. I am aware that people who have no financial interest in these beers also share concerns over some sweet lambics being compared with dry lambics.
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 14:25 Wed 5/17/2006 What a final! Wow! Can Arsenal hold on now?