Several situations in the past month have made me think about beer snobbery, which is impossible to write about without coming off like a snob. Again, my apologies for what follows.
Part I of “On Beer Snobbery” dealt with a backlash towards some of the more popular craft beers on the market, but the target of most craft beer drinkers’ ire is macro beer. After all, New Belgium’s popularity (in 2009, they sold 582,797 barrels of beer) pales in comparison to Budwiser (over 18 million barrels sold that year). I suspect that many, if not most, readers of this site, which covers craft beer in and around DC, do drink macros from time to time.
Macro beers have their time and place. I play softball on the Mall once a week from May to August. On a hot day in June, a teammate brought some bottles of a local IPA for post-game imbibing. They did not taste good. After a sporting event, loosely defined, in 90-degree heat, I want Miller Lite (note: drinking alcohol on the Mall is against the law and we here at DCBeer.com do not condone this practice).
As many residents of the mid-Atlantic know, the best use of macro lagers is for hardshell crabs. Even the delicate Schalfly Kolsch overpowers them. But Natty Boh, with corn notes that suggest summertime, a hint of something approximating Saaz hops, and a saline finish, pairs very well with crabs. Macro beer, Old Bay or JO seasoning, and a bunch of crabs is a win in my book.
My take is that if it makes you happy, if you derive pleasure from that beer, then go for it. But at the same time, I am a craft beer evangelist. I’d like macro beer drinkers to at least try a Kolsch if they’re drinking Bud. True, the latter is nominally a pilsner, or an “American adjunct lager,” for those keeping track of beer style guidelines, but the flavor profiles of many Kolsch, to me, taste like what macro lagers would taste like if they were, you know, good.
Another thing to think about: craft breweries are small businesses, providing jobs, taxes, tourism, and a sense of regional place and pride. While many ingredients come from far-flung places (malt from Canada, and hops from the Yakima Valley, for example), some craft brewers are partnering with local farms when possible. Flying Dog and Stillpoint Farm in Mt. Airy have one such relationship. The profits from macro beer usually don’t stay in a community near you. They go to South Africa, Belgium, and August Busch IV. One is an artisanal product, and you’ll pay more for it. The other is an industrial product. But again, it’s your choice, and the brewers at Bud, Miller, and Coors are among the world’s best. To brew the same thing, over and over again, in different locations, using different water supplies, and have the beer taste the same each and every time is a remarkable talent. Please don’t ignore that feat when considering macro beers.
What’s the difference between preaching the gospel of craft beer and being a hectoring snob? It’s a fine line. But if you’re making someone feel bad for their choice of beverage, please knock it off. After all, as a wise man once said, the best beer you have is the one in your hand.
Will you admit to drinking macros from time to time, or do you want to rail on me for being a sellout? Use the comments below to give us your thoughts!
Cheers!
Most people who know me know I always keep High Life tall boys in my fridge. I always feel there is a beer for every occasion. Sometimes that beer is made with lots of corn. Sometimes that beer is a cider. Sometimes it is a De Dolle Bos Keun.
A guilty summertime purchase for me is a case of the Mexican beer assortment from Costco. There’s nothing particularly craft about Tecate or Sol, but damn, do they taste good with some homemade Tex-Mex.
Also, props for use of the word “hectoring.”
It better be craft tex-mex!
Labatt Blue before, during, and after hockey or football games.
I can’t say I drink macros outside of the occasional pitcher at a dive bar (when Yeungling isn’t present), but I’m certainly not down on them. I quite enjoyed the last PBR I had while sitting outside of the Townhouse Tavern after hitting too many beers at ChurchKey. A time and a place for everything, but the craft selection is so great that my personal time and place for the macros is rapidly dwindling. I’m stoked for them to make something to appeal to the more adventurous drinkers (or to get Goose Island into NoVA).
Not that I necessarily disagree with the time and place part of the argument, but dumbing down a product to make sure the results have a more consistent taste, and then encouraging people through marketing to drink that product overly cold to help promote that consistent taste doesn’t strike me as a “talent” even if it is a good business strategy. I would rather have a consistently high quality product which may not taste exactly the same year by year than something that is consistent in taste over time when that taste is in most cases best described as lacking.
@John: Well, obvs, since my wife is the best cook EVAR.
@Bruce I really don’t think they’re dumbing down a product for consistency. I’m sure the technicians and QC team at Bud could get Dark Lord, Hop Slam, or insert and other highly regarded beer down to a science and artifact of exposition. They “dumb” down the product for one reason only: it sells. With all the rationings of WW II, the lighter adjunct taking the place of malt became popular out of necessity and flavor preference with the female workforce (who was a large number of the country at the time since many of the males were in the war). From 1940 on for the decade, gravity’s dropped (as in UK and Germany) substantially and macros saw the profits of making a less quality beer and did a huge marketing campaign that has obviously worked.
@Sean — filled tupperware or it didn’t happen.
Came home from golfing last night, coated in sweat because it is too damn hot outside. Looked at the Starr Hill and Great Lakes in my fridge, cringed, and grabbed myself a can of High Life. Any other night, I’m probably bypassing the Champagne, but sometimes it really is the best option. Like drinking Molson while watching the Capitals. No other beer will suffice.
I’m not especially moved by the overall logic of this post.
I agree with both of these statements of the author:
My take is that if it makes you happy, if you derive pleasure from that beer, then go for it.
But if you’re making someone feel bad for their choice of beverage, please knock it off.
But, don’t come to the same conclusion that we should withhold all judgement on the relative quality of different beers.
Rice-adjunct beers, in my opinion, are inferior products made solely because they are cheap.
If you like to drink them, knock yourself out, but at least be honest and admit that you like drinking low quality beer instead of pretending that you aren’t lowering your standards for a bit.
The fact that that some of the commenters feel like drinking a Miller High Life on a hot day rather than a microbrew is perfectly fine– but it doesn’t mean therefore that Miller High Life is a good beer, or even a mediocre one. It doesn’t really mean anything except that it’s cold and wet.
The implied message of the article is that it is beer snobbery to criticize macro-brew beers as inferior.
But, they are inferior and it’s not pretentious to make note of that fact.
People have the right to drink whatever they want, and I have the right not to pretend every choice is a good choice.
Furthermore, everyone draws the line somewhere anyway. How much Old Milwaukee Ice you do guys drink? Enjoy a crisp Zima now and then? And if you don’t think Zima is a legitimate choice, what are you– some kind of a beer snob?
Joel S.,
I posted a comment on Part I of this series that I think addresses some of your comments. In it, I wrote:
“The primary reason I drink craft beer is that it usually tastes better than macro offerings. When it doesn’t, I’m always disappointed, and if people want to call out a brewer or brewery for putting out a bad product, one that doesn’t taste good, one that’s a misfire, I think that’s well within your right as a consumer.”
I suspect most, if not all of the good folks who read this blog are a self-selected sample: nobody comes to this site if they’re not already interested in craft beer, and I think that all of us would, on balance, prefer a well-made tasty craft offerring over a well-made, not-so-tasty macro one. Nobody here has said that High Life is good, just that it has its time and place for many people, including readers of this site. Context really does matter, at least to me, and to some other commenters as well. When it’s 90 degrees out, I’m reaching for a High Life, or an Olympia (it’s the Tum water!), with no regrets or apologies. Each of these may be “cold and wet,” but for me these are the right beers at that moment.
I don’t think it’s snobbery to point out that, again, on balance, craft beers taste better than macros. And yet millions of people like the way macros taste, or the effects of drinking a 6-pack in one sitting (note: please don’t do this), for a variety of reasons. Make your case for craft beer (tastes better, support small businesses…) and if you’re rebuffed, move on. The beer I like, the beer we like?, isn’t for everyone, and I’m okay with that. Being “that guy” who’s always railing on macros? To me, that’s the snob.
Furthermore, there are plenty of craft brewers using rice and corn, such as Great Divide Samurai (rice) and New Glarus Spotted Cow (corn). The difference here is intent. Macros use adjuncts because they’re (and I use this antecedent in every sense) cheaper, while craft brewers use adjuncts to create interesting flavors.
As for Zima, is that still made? And is it beer? I thought it was sold as a “flavored malt beverage,” though sme Lindeman’s and Dogfish offerrings have that label as well, at least in Texas.
Cheers,
Jake
Many of the Unibroue beers are labeled “malt beverages”. Some states require it so some producers rather just make One Label to Rule Them All.
After reading all these comments, many of which refer to macro-beers being made from “cheap” adjuncts, I wanted to point out that rice and corn as adjuncts aren’t necessarily a cheap alternative. Further, the big brewers aren’t even using them because they’re cheap. Historically, rice and corn as adjuncts in the US became prevalent in the 1800s when German-American brewers (Anhuser-Busch, Pabst, Schlitz, Miller, etc.) tried to replicate the pale lagers of their home country. At the time, the bulk of the barley available in the US was 6-row, which has a higher protein level than 2-row, the norm in Europe. Rice and corn were used to balance the high protein levels, and despite the beer now tasting different, they found that people liked it.
At the time, yes, rice and corn also happened to be cheaper than malted barley, but that was not the driving factor. Today, the cost difference is actually probably insignificant–the use of adjuncts has continued though because it’s what the majority of people like or just are used to. You also can’t mash rice and corn like you would malted barley, lautering is more difficult, and those adjuncts are missing some key vitamins necessary for fermentation, so there’s a higher cost involved in the process to deal with all those issues. Basically, macro-beers are cheap not because of their ingredients (in fact, their ingredients are probably of the highest quality), but because of economies of scale. Read some stuff by Charlie Bamforth, who runs the brewing program at UC-Davis. He touches on the subject a lot.
Thanks for that insightful comment, Mike. Definitely learned something there. Cheers!