But, for the record, Americans do *not* know how to make a good beer.
No, Americans seem not to have worked out how to mass produce industrial amounts of truly good beer - and I'm not sure anyone else has.[1] The US Macrobrews are rather like cheap chain fast food: what you get is uniform and predictable, but not that good - generally they manage to be inoffensive which means pretty bland.
There are regional breweries (August Schell's in New Ulm, MN and Leinenkugel's in Chippewa Falls, WI for example) that are like upscale chains - what you get is uniform, predictable, and pretty good - but you have to know the menu some.
Then there are the true microbrews. These are like the one-off cafes or restaurants. You don't know for sure until you try it and until you know a particular one, it's anybody's guess as to if it's a hidden treasure or a lurking disaster.
Even the macrobrews are figuring out that they have to improve or at least provide a better selection. Budweiser now has 'American Ale' which while not fantastic does seem be an improvement. Michelob has a number of things under its name now, even a porter. And, judging from the single sample I've had, it's a reasonably good (though certainly not great) porter. It beats many of the US microbrew porters - though that may well be an indication of how badly most US microbrews screw up porter. Or I just consider "American Porter" to be too thin compared to a Yorkshire or Baltic Porter.
[1] This seems not to be a unique problem. Even Guinness isn't all that good for a stout, at least once compared to some good stouts. I think jmaynard described Sierra Nevada Stout (or Porter?) as "What Guinness would be if wasn't mass produced." Guinness is not outright bad as such, but I do understand why some deride it as mere "Irish Budweiser."
No, Americans seem not to have worked out how to mass produce industrial amounts of truly good beer - and I'm not sure anyone else has.[1] The US Macrobrews are rather like cheap chain fast food: what you get is uniform and predictable, but not that good - generally they manage to be inoffensive which means pretty bland.
There are regional breweries (August Schell's in New Ulm, MN and Leinenkugel's in Chippewa Falls, WI for example) that are like upscale chains - what you get is uniform, predictable, and pretty good - but you have to know the menu some.
Then there are the true microbrews. These are like the one-off cafes or restaurants. You don't know for sure until you try it and until you know a particular one, it's anybody's guess as to if it's a hidden treasure or a lurking disaster.
Even the macrobrews are figuring out that they have to improve or at least provide a better selection. Budweiser now has 'American Ale' which while not fantastic does seem be an improvement. Michelob has a number of things under its name now, even a porter. And, judging from the single sample I've had, it's a reasonably good (though certainly not great) porter. It beats many of the US microbrew porters - though that may well be an indication of how badly most US microbrews screw up porter. Or I just consider "American Porter" to be too thin compared to a Yorkshire or Baltic Porter.
[1] This seems not to be a unique problem. Even Guinness isn't all that good for a stout, at least once compared to some good stouts. I think jmaynard described Sierra Nevada Stout (or Porter?) as "What Guinness would be if wasn't mass produced." Guinness is not outright bad as such, but I do understand why some deride it as mere "Irish Budweiser."
Reply
Leave a comment