http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-24-tripels-for-two/ Jay R. Brooks on Beer Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:48:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://beerzine.com/?v=3.3.1 http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-24-tripels-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-2300 Michael Reinhardt Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:12:38 +0000 http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-24-tripels-for-two/#comment-2300 I also wanted to say that I agree that it is always better to share with someone. I also wanted to say that I agree that it is always better to share with someone.

]]> http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-24-tripels-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-2301 Michael Reinhardt Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:10:46 +0000 http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-24-tripels-for-two/#comment-2301 I agree about the idea of styles being useful guidelines. You do begin to wonder what the point of following exact definitions of what a beer is supposed to be does. To me the most interesting beers are the ones that do some exploration on one or more particular aspect of a style. I think that Dogfish head is a good American example of some more exploratory styles. I also think the same of Three Floyds brewery here in Indiana. No matter what one might think of Gumballhead, it was fairly iconoclastic for them to put a ton of hops on the front of a wheat beer. It did destroy some of notion that wheats must be delicate. However, there is an ugly side to the turning things on their head style of beer that ends in the same road of sameness. I'm thinking of the double this and double that styles of beer. Specifically, double IPAs or whatever else we might talk about end up being so hoppy (often cascades) that many of them end up loosing distinctness from overkill (both through too much and all those who are wanting to get in on the action). I do agree with your essential point though. I'm all for the exploration but only when people are exploring and not following the new style style. I agree about the idea of styles being useful guidelines. You do begin to wonder what the point of following exact definitions of what a beer is supposed to be does. To me the most interesting beers are the ones that do some exploration on one or more particular aspect of a style. I think that Dogfish head is a good American example of some more exploratory styles. I also think the same of Three Floyds brewery here in Indiana. No matter what one might think of Gumballhead, it was fairly iconoclastic for them to put a ton of hops on the front of a wheat beer. It did destroy some of notion that wheats must be delicate. However, there is an ugly side to the turning things on their head style of beer that ends in the same road of sameness. I’m thinking of the double this and double that styles of beer. Specifically, double IPAs or whatever else we might talk about end up being so hoppy (often cascades) that many of them end up loosing distinctness from overkill (both through too much and all those who are wanting to get in on the action). I do agree with your essential point though. I’m all for the exploration but only when people are exploring and not following the new style style.

]]>