https://csnews.com/why-younger-consumers-are-cause-concern-alcoholic-beverages-category
I am not much of a drinker myself.
The whole "Generation X/Y/Z"/"Millennial" thing needs to be fixed. Most sources I can find state that someone born in 1999 (which I was) is a millennial, with a few saying the (so far unnamed) generation after. However, both of my parents were baby boomers, and I believe all four of my grandparents were in the generation before that, making me unambiguously Generation X.
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2018, 09:21:57 PM
The whole "Generation X/Y/Z"/"Millennial" thing needs to be fixed. Most sources I can find state that someone born in 1999 (which I was) is a millennial, with a few saying the (so far unnamed) generation after. However, both of my parents were baby boomers, and I believe all four of my grandparents were in the generation before that, making me unambiguously Generation X.
Yeah there's lots of contradictory information out there. I was born in 1994, making me a millennial as well. As with you, both of my parents were baby boomers, but only three of my four grandparents were born in the generation before that, with the lone exception being my paternal grandfather, who was born at the tail end of the generation before that.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 12, 2018, 09:37:59 PM
Yeah there's lots of contradictory information out there.
For that reason (and others), I think shoehorning people into poorly defined generations is a waste of effort.
Quote from: Article in the OPDubbing those born between 1995 and 2007 "the sober generation"
Whew, not me! :biggrin:
Last I checked plenty of people in their late teens and early twenties will drink about anything they can get their hands on. Hell, I remember the only time I've ever drank a Natural Light was in college dorms at Michigan State where my Brother-in-Law and his friends were too poor to buy anything else.
Why kevinb1994 is cause for clickbait
QuoteFor example, a 21-year-old college student is going to have very different motivations to enter the alcoholic beverage category compared to a 33-year-old father of young children.
When I first read this, I thought this was written by a college kid. At the end of the story, the writer was a senior editor. Wow.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2018, 12:13:54 AM
Last I checked plenty of people in their late teens and early twenties will drink about anything they can get their hands on. Hell, I remember the only time I've ever drank a Natural Light was in college dorms at Michigan State where my Brother-in-Law and his friends were too poor to buy anything else.
Winner Winner, beer can chicken dinner. That's pretty much the gist of it.
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2018, 09:21:57 PM
The whole "Generation X/Y/Z"/"Millennial" thing needs to be fixed. Most sources I can find state that someone born in 1999 (which I was) is a millennial, with a few saying the (so far unnamed) generation after. However, both of my parents were baby boomers, and I believe all four of my grandparents were in the generation before that, making me unambiguously Generation X.
For one, the Generational Designation is typically all about creating marketing strategies. Not much else.
Much of it is usually a work-in-progress, since tastes are changing at a greater clip as the population, and therefore, the amount of social influences increase in one's surroundings.
No one person is going to fit the mould perfectly, since there's lots of personal tastes and regional flavor that has to be factored in. Never mind there's always waves and washes of counter-culture which do things differently, because of personal and emotional reasons. But there's many generalizations that follow; as one generation ages, there's different things they want to buy to strive for with increased purchasing power. Every other person thinks they were born in the "wrong generation". Not everyone is going to do the Popular Thing or The Now Trend every moment of one's life. Marketers don't care, they'll find what prys open the hatch which contains one's desires, fear, and loathing, and will target you on emotional insecurity somehow. They work with generalizations and statistics, and undermine your wallet one way or another. You still need to eat, get dressed, work, play, rest, and repair yourself.
Anyhow, I don't quite think it's when your parents are born - but how society and technological waves affect the public at large which can affect you and your tastes. Technically, my parents were born just before the Baby Boom, but I was born ten years after that ended. I think Generation X started around 1965, and vaguely stopped for those born in 1980-1981; supposedly, one of those markers are for when MTV/Cable TV popularized, the 1980s started up, and all the other cultural influences. I've heard before that the X meant it was arguably the Tenth generation born since America was declared independence. Which seems weird, since only a small percentage of Americans can trace their families' history that far back to the first days of post-Colonial times.
"Millennial" seems to be the point from 1981-ish to 1995; not sure why chose that point. Perhaps because 15 years seems a good point to stand back and realize there's less in common with those times? The popularity of the Internet, yet can recall the times before its all-pervasiveness? Maybe when the events of 9/11 created a noticeable change in lifestyle? But I recall the name meant that first ones became adults around the Turn of the Millennium, although I can't say I head the name used until about 7-8 years ago. Perhaps that's when many of them started to have some disposable income.
The recent one is Generation Z...supposedly those born from 1995 to 2010 (?). Sorry, they weren't very creative with that one; but as times change, they might come up with another name for it. Or change the time span for it. Right now, that story is still being written. The first few years of this generation are finally getting out of college. It's assumed they've never known a time without the Internet, and grew up alongside the purported desirability of portable computing/phones. And you'll be labelled and accused of as "lazy, unmotivated, broke, listens-to-weird-music, strange" et al just like every other generation was before it. Oddly, lots of people will lump you in with Millennials because they're still pissed off about something...I dunno, killing shopping malls* and creating debt*? Guess what...you'll do the same to the next generation.
Who cares? If you want to play Pokemon on a rocking chair while swapping stories about 1980s hair-metal bands (and include something about them "smirtfones" to sound hip), enjoy.
* yes, blame those who didn't have money or refused to carry a previous generation's emotional baggage. Very easy take.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2018, 12:13:54 AM
Last I checked plenty of people in their late teens and early twenties will drink about anything they can get their hands on. Hell, I remember the only time I've ever drank a Natural Light was in college dorms at Michigan State where my Brother-in-Law and his friends were too poor to buy anything else.
That is exactly what I thought when I read this article.
And yes, the generational boundaries are nebulous. I think of myself as Generation X, and my boss, who is about six months younger than me, identifies as a millennial.
I do find the incessant "millennials are killing [business/industry]" hilarious, though. Not to mention the constant cycle of people thinking the youngest generation are awful.
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2018, 09:21:57 PMThe whole "Generation X/Y/Z"/"Millennial" thing needs to be fixed. Most sources I can find state that someone born in 1999 (which I was) is a millennial, with a few saying the (so far unnamed) generation after. However, both of my parents were baby boomers, and I believe all four of my grandparents were in the generation before that, making me unambiguously Generation X.
It doesn't work like that - not least as sociological generations are not very long (especially with ages people become parents post-1960) - roughly 20 years and invented in the 80s as part of a bigger thing with a pattern repeating every 4 generations that was not taken well (unflattering comparisons to astrology were common in reviews of the book): Lost: 17 years (83-00), GI: 23 years (01-24), Silent: 17 years (25-42), Boomers: 17 years (43-60), Gen X: 20 years (61-81), Millennials: 18 years (82-99), 'iGen': 18+ years? (00-now). OK, these dates are disputed about where precisely to put them, but these seem to roughly be it. Gen X was the one that people latched onto and it stuck, meaning that people started using these categories for everyone else too.
A sociological generation was skipped by your family (as it was by mine). You are "Millennial" to demographers - if not then the generation after (many demographers feel the always-connected defining feature of that generation means it begins a couple of years before/after 2000), because what matters on this logic is not parents, but peers.
Oh, and if there's one demographic group that wind me up more than tail-end Millennials (giving the rest of us a bad name), it's Gen X with their notion that they are the cool kids who rule the roost - cf Gen X people continuing to insist on naming the next two generations in their image as 'Y' and 'Z' despite their being an official name for 'Y' and several proposed for 'Z'. You've jumped out of frying pan and into the fire there! :-P
But yeah, it's all a load of annoying nonsense, whereby people are not treated as individuals. When it's handy shorthand for people who deal in demographics, sure, when it's made an identity - yuck.
PS: Gen X was named by Copeland (making it the only generation named by one of them - no wonder why its the one that's most accepted by the people of it!). The quacks who came up with the concept had them as the 13th generation after the Revolution. And if Copeland counted differently and got ten and thus 'X', then that makes the Gen Y thing even more arrogant and insulting as the naming pattern changes from Roman Numerals to the Alphabet around the egotist generation! :pan:
---
I find it funny how the article begins by saying that young people not chugging back loads of cheap swill, but supping smaller quantities of higher-quality premium products is bad for the beer industry - it's not, unless you are the marketing director of Bud Light or similar (and if you are the marketing director of Bud Light, that is, in and of itself, a whole pit of misery worse than young people preferring better beer. Dilly dilly!). All the big parent companies have been buying up smaller breweries for decades, letting them keep brand and creative independence for the last decade (rather than having them churn out the same stuff all over) to cash in on the reaction against the big brewers brewing the same old stuff.
As this article (https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2018/07/23/Opinion-lager-is-the-same-everywhere-yeah) explains, the UK lager industry moved, in the early 00s, from spending money on advertising, to spending money on promotions in stores - they noticed that the transition from pub to home drinking meant that brand loyalty was dying, and what was the cheapest was what was bought. They also made their already-cheap already-crap products cheaper and crappier. They still advertise (well Fosters does), but what this shift has meant is that their drinkers are more likely to be people in their 80s, than people born in the 80s. People born in the 80s that are lager drinkers like their lager from a known big continental brewer (which are far from the best, but they are easily available and consistent) - often despite (or because of - 'reassuringly expensive' as Stella puts it) its premium price - and go with shots on the side if they just want to get drunk.
This Guardian piece (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/12/millennials-killed-pubs-prices-diversification-boozer) on the same theme blames pubs rather than people for the decline in going out drinking (though as it is the Guardian, they neglect to mention that beer tax being much higher than 20 years ago is a key reason why it's pricey, as are high rents that have killed UK High Streets too).
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 06:49:35 AMmy boss, who is about six months younger than me, identifies as a millennial.
39 years ago is close to the artificial boundary, by some reckonings (the 1980 one, rather than the being a child when the Millennium turned one that's much more common) - so you might legit be either side of it.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 06:53:15 AMthe youngest generation
Millennials are all adults now (by most definitions of the terms in that claim there), with most of a generation existing younger than them, but the whole narrative against them means that anything High Schoolers do bad is blamed on 'Millennials'.
Of course, when you have meaningless categories defined by quackery with arbitrary cut-offs...
And, the same sort of articles happened to Gen X in the early 90s, when their generation were at about the same phase as the Millennials are now.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 06:49:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2018, 12:13:54 AM
Last I checked plenty of people in their late teens and early twenties will drink about anything they can get their hands on. Hell, I remember the only time I've ever drank a Natural Light was in college dorms at Michigan State where my Brother-in-Law and his friends were too poor to buy anything else.
That is exactly what I thought when I read this article.
And yes, the generational boundaries are nebulous. I think of myself as Generation X, and my boss, who is about six months younger than me, identifies as a millennial.
Hell I used to have a bottle of vodka in the apartment that I would serve because it was cheaper to just mix in with Coke than buy even the cheapest beer. You basically do what you have to when your purchases come down to the last cent at that age.
Quote from: english si on November 13, 2018, 08:17:29 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 06:49:35 AMmy boss, who is about six months younger than me, identifies as a millennial.
39 years ago is close to the artificial boundary, by some reckonings (the 1980 one, rather than the being a child when the Millennium turned one that's much more common) - so you might legit be either side of it.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 06:53:15 AMthe youngest generation
Millennials are all adults now (by most definitions of the terms in that claim there), with most of a generation existing younger than them, but the whole narrative against them means that anything High Schoolers do bad is blamed on 'Millennials'.
Of course, when you have meaningless categories defined by quackery with arbitrary cut-offs...
And, the same sort of articles happened to Gen X in the early 90s, when their generation were at about the same phase as the Millennials are now.
I was born in March 1979, she was born in the fall. For both of us it came down to reading the description of each generation and deciding which one we identified with.
I agree that (a) the categories are largely meaningless and (b) the people we think of as "millennials" now aren't actually millennials; millennials are in their late 20s and early 30s. And with regards to the latter, I think "millennial" has replaced "hipster" as a term that means little more than "person whose beliefs and aesthetics the speaker hates."
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2018, 08:21:39 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 06:49:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2018, 12:13:54 AM
Last I checked plenty of people in their late teens and early twenties will drink about anything they can get their hands on. Hell, I remember the only time I've ever drank a Natural Light was in college dorms at Michigan State where my Brother-in-Law and his friends were too poor to buy anything else.
That is exactly what I thought when I read this article.
And yes, the generational boundaries are nebulous. I think of myself as Generation X, and my boss, who is about six months younger than me, identifies as a millennial.
Hell I used to have a bottle of vodka in the apartment that I would serve because it was cheaper to just mix in with Coke than buy even the cheapest beer. You basically do what you have to when your purchases come down to the last cent at that age.
I feel like I was a special case because I lived in DC and worked for the Senate when I was in my early 20s, which meant low pay in a city with a high cost of living, but it was pregaming, and all-you-can-drink specials, and attending receptions I didn't particularly care about just for the free food and booze, as far as the eye could see.
IMHO,
- The whole "this generation is changing this or that business model" is just empty writing.
- A-B and MCM spill more beer than all of these idiotic microbrewers sell.
- Del Webb was born dirt poor. And died a billionaire. Selling a product that no one under 55 could buy. You can jump into trying to compete with everybody for the core market. Or you can find a niche and win big.
Without reading the article, in the USA, the changes in the brewing industry started in the late 1970s when President Carter signed a law allowing individuals to once again legally brew their own beer at home. Ambitious hobbyist brewers then started working with different flavors and brewing styles and over time began dabbling into commercial brewing. Fast forward a couple of decades and these micro brewers are moving from the niche into the mainstreams of adult beverages, ditto wineries and distilleries.
IMHO, it is not a this generation v. that generation thing, rather that the USA is finally fully recovering from Prohibition, the 18th Amendment days from 1920 through 1933 when making, importing and transporting beverage alcohol was unconstitutional, before which the USA was world renowned for the quality of the beer, wine, whiskey and other adult beverages that it produced - and finally regaining its taste for and ability to make GOOD STUFF.
I was listening to an interesting radio discussion on this matter a few months ago where it was stated that there are now more operating commercial breweries in the USA than there were at any time prior to 1920. Even the trendiest flavored micro beers of today are ALL a 'Back to the Future' thing - they were the norm before Prohibition.
I fully believe that.
Mike
I wouldn't call this clickbait, the links aren't THAT tempting. Perhaps the OP should consolidate all of these links into a c-store thread. Of course, it is easier to criticize than create threads...
FWIW, it is only recently that I've seen many Connecticut convenience stores that sell beer. Generally speaking, you cannot sell both beer and gasoline at the same location in Conn..
THen again, maybe NE2 is suggesting the the OP works for csnews.com.
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2018, 09:21:57 PM
The whole "Generation X/Y/Z"/"Millennial" thing needs to be fixed. Most sources I can find state that someone born in 1999 (which I was) is a millennial, with a few saying the (so far unnamed) generation after. However, both of my parents were baby boomers, and I believe all four of my grandparents were in the generation before that, making me unambiguously Generation X.
Interesting!
I was born in 1999, too, but my parents were born in the very late 60's/early 70's, making
them very distinctly part of Generation X. I am the oldest in my family, and among the oldest of my grandparent's grandchildren, too. And my grandparents were baby boomers, being born in the early 50's. You must be the youngest, or at least towards the bottom, of your family. I certainly regard
myself as a millennial (some sources say millennials must be born before 1997, but I think 2000 is a much better cut-off date).
I agree that the whole "generation" thing portends a lot of problems, and is largely meaningless fluff. The baby boomers are very distinctly a generation, due to the wave of births, but it's almost impossible to keep track of what happens after that. The next generation(s) haven't evolved in such a structured wave, i.e. the big wave has caused mere ripples, not additional waves.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 09:52:28 AM- The whole "this generation is changing this or that business model" is just empty writing.
And even if millennials really are killing off casual dining and the diamond industry, it's no great loss.
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 10:55:10 AM
THen again, maybe NE2 is suggesting the the OP works for csnews.com.
It's more likely that he's being an ass for no apparent reason.
I was born in 1968 and couldn't imagine having a kid in 1999. I'm a late bloomer and never got around to being fruitful and multiplying.
^Probably because I was drinking too often as a young man. (Bringing this thread full circle.)
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 10:55:10 AM
THen again, maybe NE2 is suggesting the the OP works for csnews.com.
It's more likely that he's being an ass for no apparent reason.
And the sky is blue, water is wet, and yes, a bear shits in the woods.
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 11:35:09 AM
I was born in 1968 and couldn't imagine having a kid in 1999. I'm a late bloomer and never got around to being fruitful and multiplying.
I had my first kid this year. I don't think I would have thought I would be a father for the first time at 39, either, but I think I'd rather be a geriatric parent with a stable career than a young parent with an unstable one.
Maturity was more of an issue for me than money. Eventually, around when I turned around 40, I saw some of the barflies a few years older than me and decided that I wanted more from life than that. I still have an occasional drink, but it's at home or out at dinner with my wife.
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 12:34:47 PMEventually, around when I turned around 40, I saw some of the barflies a few years older than me and decided that I wanted more from life than that.
Yep, or as Chris Rock put it, "you don't want to be that guy at the club. He ain't old, he's just a little too old to be at a club."
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 11:35:09 AM
I was born in 1968 and couldn't imagine having a kid in 1999. I'm a late bloomer and never got around to being fruitful and multiplying.
My father was born in 1959 and had me in 2002. Quite a generational gap... Baby boomer all the way to Gen Z.
On the topic of belonging to a generation, in the sense of growing up, it really boils down to your childhood experiences and the year you were born taken into consideration together, the year isn't the sole determiner. I associate with both the current generation as well as millennials, because in my earlier childhood, I had a lot of influence from younger millennial culture from my older brothers, and as such, I'm able to relate a lot with the later part of that generation, in some cases more than my current one.
I'm not a big consumer of alcoholic beverages, even less so now that I'm prone to gout, but I don't identify with any generation. I was born in December 1961. Too young to be a boomer -- and I'm sick of the jerks who blame the boomers for all of their own problems -- and not young enough to be a Gen X'er. I don't identify with any of those generations.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 09:52:28 AM- A-B and MCM spill more beer than all of these idiotic microbrewers sell.
The big multinationals also make more craft beer than the independent brewers, having brought a load of successful microbreweries and then expanding them while keeping the brand to dupe hipsters who'd care that Camden Hells lager is brought to you by the same conglomeration that brings you Stella and Budweiser, rather than simply some small business in the hipster bit of London...
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2018, 10:40:46 AM
Even the trendiest flavored micro beers of today are ALL a 'Back to the Future' thing - they were the norm before Prohibition.
Not exactly. Prior to, and since Prohibition, the dominant style of beer has been "American lager". The difference that caused the number of breweries to decline is that beer used to be a highly regional product. A brewer had a region in which it was very dominant (with an American style lager), and it was unknown elsewhere (similar to sliced bread or dairy today).
As transportation improved, and the media became national (it is vastly less expensive to buy ads nationally than regionally). Over time these beers lost out to nationally advertised brands who built duplicate breweries all over the country. The list of fallen flags (or nearly fallen as a lot of the brand names are still made for novelty sake in small numbers) is very long, but all of them were only slightly distinguishable from Budweiser.
The "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Not that there is anything "wrong" with liking pumpkin "beer" or whatever. Just as there is nothing wrong with the 91% market share in the beer industry taken by people who make "the good stuff". Budweiser, Miller, and Coors.
Quote from: english si on November 13, 2018, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 09:52:28 AM- A-B and MCM spill more beer than all of these idiotic microbrewers sell.
The big multinationals also make more craft beer than the independent brewers, having brought a load of successful microbreweries and then expanding them while keeping the brand to dupe hipsters who'd care that Camden Hells lager is brought to you by the same conglomeration that brings you Stella and Budweiser, rather than simply some small business in the hipster bit of London...
Or, in the case of Blue Moon, created from whole cloth by a macrobrewery.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 09:52:28 AM
IMHO,
- The whole "this generation is changing this or that business model" is just empty writing.
+1
If the new generation doesn't want to buy what you're selling... that's kind of normal in the world of business. Just figure out what they
do want to buy and start selling that instead.
Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2018, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 10:55:10 AM
THen again, maybe NE2 is suggesting the the OP works for csnews.com.
It's more likely that he's being an ass for no apparent reason.
And the sky is blue, water is wet, and yes, a bear shits in the woods.
All is right in the world :-D :rolleyes:
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 01:30:12 PMThe "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Like rice. Oh wait that's Budweiser (but not the superior Budvar that is more like the sort of stuff that "American lager" used to be before prohibition).
And all the main sellers in the US are lightly hopped - ie trying to be beer with the minimal amount of one of the two key flavourings (the other one being malt - itself tweaked with the addition of other grains in the US's best-selling beer).
Most craft beers try and keep it simple. OK, they might add something beyond the Barley, Hops, Yeast and Water, but rarely. Coffee in a coffee stout (though you can do that and chocolately flavours in the malt), etc. Pumpkin beer is like pumpkin-spiced latte - an abomination.
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2018, 02:21:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 09:52:28 AM
IMHO,
- The whole "this generation is changing this or that business model" is just empty writing.
+1
If the new generation doesn't want to buy what you're selling... that's kind of normal in the world of business. Just figure out what they do want to buy and start selling that instead.
Whole industries, corporations, businesses have been dying off for one reason or another; generations after generation, presumably for centuries. That's something to think about when you need a new powdered wig, a hat blocked, one's harpsichord tuned, the sharpening of a horse-drawn plow, that typewriter repaired, a tire inner tube repaired, or a daguerreotype processed. If the thought of Millennials' spending habits make you sick, there's some radium treatments for that, but first we have to take your temperature with a mercury thermometer and break out some leaches. You can post those complaints onto parchment with a quill pen, but now this seems a little too much like a dead thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21490.0).
Back on topic, maybe there's a little less money to spend on beer and maybe the twenty-somethings do that once or twice, and then they get over it. Or there's weed over them there Rockies. Maybe they don't want to drink Dad's beer, and would rather patronize a local place. Or maybe ID laws are actually getting enforced. If the massive increase in the count of breweries and beer culture is anything to go by, the alcohol dollar is just going away from the C-store. Maybe getting slovenly drunk at 10am isn't as classy as it was before. Tighter drinking restrictions. Maybe it took a few thousand deaths to finally slow down the buzzed/drunk driving stupidity.
I would love to wear a powdered wig.
Hat blocks are a bad example - Wikipedia sez they're making a comeback thanks to hats being popular amongst, you guessed it, millennials.
Heh. Maybe it's the Upper Midwesterner in me, but this all sounds like clickbait to me. I don't drink much because I don't like the taste, but most of my friends do.
Quote from: english si on November 13, 2018, 04:19:20 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 01:30:12 PMThe "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Like rice. Oh wait that's Budweiser (but not the superior Budvar that is more like the sort of stuff that "American lager" used to be before prohibition).
And all the main sellers in the US are lightly hopped - ie trying to be beer with the minimal amount of one of the two key flavourings (the other one being malt - itself tweaked with the addition of other grains in the US's best-selling beer).
Most craft beers try and keep it simple. OK, they might add something beyond the Barley, Hops, Yeast and Water, but rarely. Coffee in a coffee stout (though you can do that and chocolately flavours in the malt), etc. Pumpkin beer is like pumpkin-spiced latte - an abomination.
Spot on. What people like him tend to miss is that we don't want what the macros are selling, end of story. There was a regional brewery whose beers I enjoyed that sold out to A-B a couple years ago. Haven't bought one of their beers since.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 13, 2018, 09:58:15 PM
Heh. Maybe it's the Upper Midwesterner in me, but this all sounds like clickbait to me. I don't drink much because I don't like the taste, but most of my friends do.
Precisely. It's clickbait targeted at older people who are afraid of the changes the younger generation(s) are bringing.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2018, 09:38:00 PM
Hat blocks are a bad example - Wikipedia sez they're making a comeback thanks to hats being popular amongst, you guessed it, millennials.
Don't forget, it's entirely possible anyone to state on Wikipedia that I-95 still has a gap.
Quote from: formulanone on November 13, 2018, 08:07:06 PMone's harpsichord tuned
Piano tuners should be able to provide that service. My friend with a harpsichord does it himself though, so I'm not certain.
Quotea tire inner tube repaired
You can buy patch kits, and I imagine that you could pay someone to do it. Though when I took my bike to the bike shop to fix various issues caused by not using it due to multiple punctures that I couldn't patch myself, they just replaced the inner tube. Or are you talking cars? Certainly its a similar job and if you had a vintage car, you'd be able to find someone to do it.
Many of the things you talk about are either easy enough that an odd job man can do it, not niche enough that jobs that are pretty much the same exist. Or they are returned/never left as something traditional or artisan or whatever.
You'd have better luck with stuff like "respool cassette tapes", "clean the head of your VHS machine", etc that are things that are much more recent, not good quality, superceded, and unlikely to make a comeback.
Quote from: jon daly on November 13, 2018, 08:23:15 PMI would love to wear a powdered wig.
Go into The Law in England and be good at it. Judges and high-end barristers are required to wear them in court.
Quote from: Takumi on November 13, 2018, 10:06:54 PMSpot on. What people like him tend to miss is that we don't want what the macros are selling, end of story. There was a regional brewery whose beers I enjoyed that sold out to A-B a couple years ago. Haven't bought one of their beers since.
Err, that isn't what I was saying.
In that post, I was taking SP Cook's gripe about craft beer being for people who don't like the taste of beer and need stuff added to it, and pointing out that America's best selling beer has an added ingredient, and the whole style it belongs to - the one he's defending - seeks to have as little of one of the two main beer flavours as possible.
I don't think the craft beer thing is specifically against the big guys - there is that element for sure (local, artisan, etc) among some, but earlier posts of mine in this thread discuss how most people just care about the premium nature of the product / the experience, and aren't too fussed about brand ownership - otherwise the craft beers owned by multinationals wouldn't sell - especially not, say, Hop House 13 - which has 'Guinness' branding all over it (compare, say, Goose Bay, which keeps its own brand).
OK, sure, its quite a sizeable number of people you can wind up by pointing out that the "Camden Hells Lager" they are drinking is owned by AB InBev, and some of it has been known to not have been brewed in that hipster suburb. But most drinkers of it don't care because it is a good product that they like. Last beer festival I did, the microbrewery sourcing the beers for it picked that lager, Guinness (it was St Paddy's Day) as well as three ales of their own and five ales from other microbreweries.
The not brewed on location is usually more controversial than the multinational ownership. As an example, see the controversy where now-ubiquitous UK Real Ale 'Doom Bar' underwent a hasty expansion of production about 7-8 years ago, leading to some bottles containing beer made outside Cornwall (apparently other breweries in the county was fine) due to the need to outsource while they expanded their original brewery, and compare it to the lack of outcry when MolsonCoors brought the brewery 3-4 years ago. The last one I had (a few months ago) tasted just as good as the first one I had, half a lifetime ago overlooking the sand bank that names the beer.
Also see, with the big names, the move for UK Guinness to be the 'real' stuff brewed in Dublin rather than stuff brewed in the UK to the exact same recipe.
Quote
In that post, I was taking SP Cook's gripe about craft beer being for people who don't like the taste of beer and need stuff added to it, and pointing out that America's best selling beer has an added ingredient, and the whole style it belongs to - the one he's defending - seeks to have as little of one of the two main beer flavours as possible.
Fair enough. His post was bad enough that there were multiple points to be picked apart. I find American lagers to be too bland for my taste. I'm not saying I particularly
need India Pale levels of hoppiness in a beer, but I just do not like lighter beers that don't have a noticeable hop flavor to them.
Quote from: Takumi on November 14, 2018, 09:30:32 AM
QuoteIn that post, I was taking SP Cook's gripe about craft beer being for people who don't like the taste of beer and need stuff added to it, and pointing out that America's best selling beer has an added ingredient, and the whole style it belongs to - the one he's defending - seeks to have as little of one of the two main beer flavours as possible.
Fair enough. His post was bad enough that there were multiple points to be picked apart. I find American lagers to be too bland for my taste. I'm not saying I particularly need India Pale levels of hoppiness in a beer, but I just do not like lighter beers that don't have a noticeable hop flavor to them.
Once you realize it's just a form of reverse-snobbery, that it's merely SP Cook sneering at people he thinks are sneering at him, it all makes sense.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 14, 2018, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Takumi on November 14, 2018, 09:30:32 AM
QuoteIn that post, I was taking SP Cook's gripe about craft beer being for people who don't like the taste of beer and need stuff added to it, and pointing out that America's best selling beer has an added ingredient, and the whole style it belongs to - the one he's defending - seeks to have as little of one of the two main beer flavours as possible.
Fair enough. His post was bad enough that there were multiple points to be picked apart. I find American lagers to be too bland for my taste. I'm not saying I particularly need India Pale levels of hoppiness in a beer, but I just do not like lighter beers that don't have a noticeable hop flavor to them.
Once you realize it's just a form of reverse-snobbery, that it's merely SP Cook sneering at people he thinks are sneering at him, it all makes sense.
Yeah. Some instances, it's almost understandable, but this isn't one of them. I could add to that, but it'd derail/potentially lock the thread.
Quote from: Takumi on November 14, 2018, 09:30:32 AMI find American lagers to be too bland for my taste.
I can drink them (and Aussie/British lagers of a similar ilk), but I'd rather drink something else. Even Becks (an AB InBev product and the most bland German beer) is an improvement.
QuoteI'm not saying I particularly need India Pale levels of hoppiness in a beer
That's my least favourite thing about the US Craft Beer movement: the MUHR HOPS!!! of it all. It doesn't help that, US hops taste different to UK ones that were originally used to make IPA - 'grapefruit notes' is not something I particularly like in a beer. The strong flavours of New World Hops / high IBU are more tolerable when balanced out with stronger malty flavours of a Ruby or Dark beer, but there's an obsession with going with something akin to eating flowers, especially with the American-style IPAs, but creeping into classic English bitter styles too because of the fad for US-style craft beer here.
Coming in close second is the MUHR ABV of it all (though that's changing). There's no reason why you can't have high ABV beer, but it shouldn't need to be a big dick contest and many styles would be better suited to being more at the 4% mark, rather than the 6% mark - if for the ability to drink more of them before becoming to intoxicated, if nothing else.
Quote from: english si on November 14, 2018, 11:06:39 AM
Quote from: Takumi on November 14, 2018, 09:30:32 AMI find American lagers to be too bland for my taste.
I can drink them (and Aussie/British lagers of a similar ilk), but I'd rather drink something else. Even Becks (an AB InBev product and the most bland German beer) is an improvement.
QuoteI'm not saying I particularly need India Pale levels of hoppiness in a beer
That's my least favourite thing about the US Craft Beer movement: the MUHR HOPS!!! of it all. It doesn't help that, US hops taste different to UK ones that were originally used to make IPA - 'grapefruit notes' is not something I particularly like in a beer. The strong flavours of New World Hops / high IBU are more tolerable when balanced out with stronger malty flavours of a Ruby or Dark beer, but there's an obsession with going with something akin to eating flowers, especially with the American-style IPAs, but creeping into classic English bitter styles too because of the fad for US-style craft beer here.
Coming in close second is the MUHR ABV of it all (though that's changing). There's no reason why you can't have high ABV beer, but it shouldn't need to be a big dick contest and many styles would be better suited to being more at the 4% mark, rather than the 6% mark - if for the ability to drink more of them before becoming to intoxicated, if nothing else.
I actually prefer the slightly higher alcohol content for that reason - only one is needed to get a buzz. I've tried quite a few double-digit ABV beers, and the prevalent thing about them as that the alcohol flavor overpowers everything else after a certain point. Some, quite simply, tasted like liquor. As far as hops go, I do notice few IPAs over here are brewed with English hops; variants that aren't American tend to be from Australia and New Zealand as opposed to Europe. I've found my favorite to be Galaxy, which is an Aussie variety.
Quote from: english si on November 14, 2018, 06:34:53 AM
Many of the things you talk about are either easy enough that an odd job man can do it ... You'd have better luck with stuff like ... "clean the head of your VHS machine"
Talk about simplicity! All you need is a screwdriver, a cotton ball, and some mineral spirits.
Quote from: Takumi on November 14, 2018, 12:42:29 PMI actually prefer the slightly higher alcohol content for that reason - only one is needed to get a buzz.
Which is fine - note I'm not saying "there shouldn't be higher alcohol beer", but "not all decent beer needs to be high alcohol".
It's unsurprising that a few American-made IPAs use English hops - same reason as why there's English-made IPAs with American hops: demand for both flavour profiles.
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2018, 01:41:09 PMTalk about simplicity! All you need is a screwdriver, a cotton ball, and some mineral spirits.
Gah, the curse of being too young to know how to do something!
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2018, 01:41:09 PM
Quote from: english si on November 14, 2018, 06:34:53 AM
Many of the things you talk about are either easy enough that an odd job man can do it ... You'd have better luck with stuff like ... "clean the head of your VHS machine"
Talk about simplicity! All you need is a screwdriver, a cotton ball, and some mineral spirits.
Just like cleaning the capstan and head of a tape deck. It's been a few decades since I demagnetized a cassette...
There's likely a specialist for everything I mentioned, but an industry? Not at all.
I was born in October of 1985. I don't really consider myself to be a millennial, because I remember life before the internet and cell phones and 900 channels on cable TV. When I was a kid, if we wanted to talk to our friends we had to actually go knock on their door or call them. I still, mostly, played outside as a kid as well. I also don't really consider myself Gen X because by the time I was a kid, MTV had been around for a while and started to do shows instead of being all music all the time. I kind of like the term "Xennial" or "Oregon Trail Generation", because I did play Oregon Trail on the school computer as a kid.
Quote from: ce929wax on November 15, 2018, 04:34:55 PM
I kind of like the term ...
I don't like any of the terms at all. In fact, I still don't really know what "gen" I'm supposed to fit it. I think I'm somewhere near the line between X and Y, but I don't care. If I refer to myself as anything, I just say I'm "a child of the 80s" (I was born in 1981).
I can tell if someone is younger than me if they mention Oregon Trail.
I was born in November of 1999, but due to being I suppose between being a Millenial and a member of Generation Z, I am not sure to which generation I actually belong - of course, as noted, the whole generation categorization thing in the first place can indeed be very ambiguous anyway. I probably identify with both generations in different ways. I didn't really have much access to video games or the internet until I was about 8 years old (though the former isn't actually exclusive to Generation Z, or even Millenials for that matter). I never had a video game console until around 2007, and while my family has always had a computer(s) in the house as long as I've been alive, I never really knew that much about or utilized YouTube, Google Maps, and other parts of the internet until around 2009 or so. This means the larger part of my young childhood (the first decade of my life) was primarily characterized by toys, notebooks and magnadoodles (a device that has always been close to my heart for drawing roads, signs, and etc., erasing, then doing it all over again - though if I wanted permanent copies of this I would then utilize the notebooks for drawing), paper maps, books, watching TV, and more. Hell, I even grew up with VCR's and tapes for movies for the first several years of my life. It was actually my maternal grandfather who suggested to my parents that they should get a DVD player. My parents (born in the late 1960's) are members of Generation X, and all of my grandparents are part of the Silent Generation, being born in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Once reaching 21 years of age, I plan to have a drink every once in a while, but I'm not sure how it will compare to other generations' consumption patterns in that category, or how it would affect the booze market.
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2018, 09:21:57 PM
that someone born in 1999...
...making me unambiguously Generation X.
Nope. Not even close. The youngest Xer was born in 1981. You're 18 years off.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 09:52:28 AM
A-B and MCM spill more beer than all of these idiotic microbrewers sell.
Why do you think craft breweries are "idiotic"? I thought conservatives worshipped small businesses. Or do you just have shitty taste in beer and you resent craft beer?
Nexus 5X
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2018, 10:40:46 AM
Even the trendiest flavored micro beers of today are ALL a 'Back to the Future' thing - they were the norm before Prohibition.
Not exactly. Prior to, and since Prohibition, the dominant style of beer has been "American lager". The difference that caused the number of breweries to decline is that beer used to be a highly regional product. A brewer had a region in which it was very dominant (with an American style lager), and it was unknown elsewhere (similar to sliced bread or dairy today).
As transportation improved, and the media became national (it is vastly less expensive to buy ads nationally than regionally). Over time these beers lost out to nationally advertised brands who built duplicate breweries all over the country. The list of fallen flags (or nearly fallen as a lot of the brand names are still made for novelty sake in small numbers) is very long, but all of them were only slightly distinguishable from Budweiser.
The "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Not that there is anything "wrong" with liking pumpkin "beer" or whatever. Just as there is nothing wrong with the 91% market share in the beer industry taken by people who make "the good stuff". Budweiser, Miller, and Coors.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 01:30:12 PM
The "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Actually, the styles made by craft breweries are often much older than the adjunct lager style (Budweiser, Miller, Coors). Adjunct lagers are made from corn or rice, which is cheaper than using real beer ingredients.
Bud Light is the king of "beer for those who don't like beer". It has very little flavor and tastes like skunky water. You have it backwards.
Quote
Not that there is anything "wrong" with liking pumpkin "beer" or whatever. Just as there is nothing wrong with the 91% market share in the beer industry taken by people who make "the good stuff". Budweiser, Miller, and Coors.
You have awful taste in beer if you think that swill is the "good stuff". Give me a Belgian Trappist ale or a German doppelbock over that horse piss.
Nexus 5X
You answer your own question. If a person is in the tiny minority that likes odd styles of beer, great. But 95% of people who do always have to throw shade on the vast majority that likes the Market chosen majority style. Classic American lager. It is fine to be in a minority in tastes for anything, of course, but the "idiotic" part of it, to me, is the constant desire to look down on people that get what beer is supposed to taste like.
"You are dumb" as a marketing strategy is really just faux-snob appeal and can only take things so far. Which is why Bud Light's current medieval ad campaign is so good.
And, dollars to donuts, in 10 years B-M-C will still be around, and 95% of the micros will be long forgotten and the "I'm smarter than you" crowd will have been guiled into the next fad.
Quote from: bugo on November 26, 2018, 08:30:31 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2018, 10:40:46 AM
Even the trendiest flavored micro beers of today are ALL a 'Back to the Future' thing - they were the norm before Prohibition.
Not exactly. Prior to, and since Prohibition, the dominant style of beer has been "American lager". The difference that caused the number of breweries to decline is that beer used to be a highly regional product. A brewer had a region in which it was very dominant (with an American style lager), and it was unknown elsewhere (similar to sliced bread or dairy today).
As transportation improved, and the media became national (it is vastly less expensive to buy ads nationally than regionally). Over time these beers lost out to nationally advertised brands who built duplicate breweries all over the country. The list of fallen flags (or nearly fallen as a lot of the brand names are still made for novelty sake in small numbers) is very long, but all of them were only slightly distinguishable from Budweiser.
The "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Not that there is anything "wrong" with liking pumpkin "beer" or whatever. Just as there is nothing wrong with the 91% market share in the beer industry taken by people who make "the good stuff". Budweiser, Miller, and Coors.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2018, 01:30:12 PM
The "craft beer" fad is a new thing. Founded, IMHO, by people who really don't like beer and think it would be cool to make something out of some odd ingredients.
Actually, the styles made by craft breweries are often much older than the adjunct lager style (Budweiser, Miller, Coors). Adjunct lagers are made from corn or rice, which is cheaper than using real beer ingredients.
Bud Light is the king of "beer for those who don't like beer". It has very little flavor and tastes like skunky water. You have it backwards.
Quote
Not that there is anything "wrong" with liking pumpkin "beer" or whatever. Just as there is nothing wrong with the 91% market share in the beer industry taken by people who make "the good stuff". Budweiser, Miller, and Coors.
You have awful taste in beer if you think that swill is the "good stuff". Give me a Belgian Trappist ale or a German doppelbock over that horse piss.
Nexus 5X
https://youtu.be/yOOk_rIzcgo
QuoteMarket chosen majority style
In other words, you like it because other people tell you it's what you're supposed to like. Got it. I'll stick with choosing things based my own taste buds, thanks.
Quotewhat beer is supposed to taste like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot
The Germans would like to have a word with you on that.
From the Onion:
(https://i0.wp.com/www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fe10cartoon.jpg?w=620&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px)
(also: best beer == Dragon's Milk, New Holland Brewing)
Quote
In other words, you like it because other people tell you it's what you're supposed to like. Got it. I'll stick with choosing things based my own taste buds, thanks.
No, in fact exactly the opposite. I like regular beer because my tastes are ordinary. 91% of beer is classic American lager, because that is what most people, given the choice, prefer. If most people preferred Oatmeal Pumpkin lemon IPAs, then that is what they would make. They don't.
As stated, there is nothing wrong with being in the tiny 9% minority that like other things. In beer, or anything else.
Its is just the pure arrogance and "I'm smart, you're dumb" and the need to describe what most people prefer, and the need to describe it as "skunky" or "horsepiss" and such. Rather than just accepting you are a niche and outside the norm. As if you choice of beer (and, to tell the truth, if the 91% liked a beer like the micros make, I suspect at least half the current micro crowd would decide it was "horsepiss" then) is anything other than a taste preference.
Quote from: bugo on November 26, 2018, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2018, 09:21:57 PM
that someone born in 1999...
...making me unambiguously Generation X.
Nope. Not even close. The youngest Xer was born in 1981. You're 18 years off.
I said something similar upthread. His parents are baby boomers, though, so he is either the youngest of a big family, or just has old parents.
I was born in 1999, too, and my
grandparents are baby boomers, so it just goes to show how messy it can get trying to sort the population into generations.
The only purpose of beer, in my opinion, is to consume it to become intoxicated.
I realize that some people like the taste of beer, be it the mass-produced stuff like Bud or Busch or Coors (which, itself, used to be a regional fad "status-symbol" product that spawned a decent movie that starred Reynolds, Reed, Field, Gleason and a black Trans-Am) or this micro-brewed flavored stuff.
I am not one of those people, and have no desire to drink beer with a pizza, drink beer for the taste, etc. I'm not a social drinker by any definition. If I purchase an alcoholic beverage, it's for the intoxication effect and no other reason. If I'm thirsty, or if I need something with which to wash down a meal, it will be a Diet Coke. If you ever invite me out for "drinks," don't be offended if I select a non-alcoholic product.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2018, 07:30:22 PM
The only purpose of beer, in my opinion, is to consume it to become intoxicated.
I realize that some people like the taste of beer, be it the mass-produced stuff like Bud or Busch or Coors (which, itself, used to be a regional fad "status-symbol" product that spawned a decent movie that starred Reynolds, Reed, Field, Gleason and a black Trans-Am) or this micro-brewed flavored stuff.
I am not one of those people, and have no desire to drink beer with a pizza, drink beer for the taste, etc. I'm not a social drinker by any definition. If I purchase an alcoholic beverage, it's for the intoxication effect and no other reason. If I'm thirsty, or if I need something with which to wash down a meal, it will be a Diet Coke. If you ever invite me out for "drinks," don't be offended if I select a non-alcoholic product.
I'm with you here, H.B. I'm not much of a drinker myself (nor is my family). Diet Coke isn't my favorite type of soda, however (that would be Dr. Pepper, Sprite, or any brand of root beer).
Quote from: SP Cook on November 26, 2018, 09:47:27 AMAnd, dollars to donuts, in 10 years B-M-C will still be around, and 95% of the micros will be long forgotten and the "I'm smarter than you" crowd will have been guiled into the next fad.
The micros will still be around. They're here to stay and the list of micros
that have disappeared over the past 20 or 30 years is short. What will probably disappear are the regional macros such as PBR and Schlitz, the ones on life support that are currently being propped up by the hipsters you enjoy sneering at as much as, well, all the other groups you enjoy sneering at.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2018, 07:30:22 PM
The only purpose of beer, in my opinion, is to consume it to become intoxicated.
I realize that some people like the taste of beer, be it the mass-produced stuff like Bud or Busch or Coors (which, itself, used to be a regional fad "status-symbol" product that spawned a decent movie that starred Reynolds, Reed, Field, Gleason and a black Trans-Am) or this micro-brewed flavored stuff.
I am not one of those people, and have no desire to drink beer with a pizza, drink beer for the taste, etc. I'm not a social drinker by any definition. If I purchase an alcoholic beverage, it's for the intoxication effect and no other reason. If I'm thirsty, or if I need something with which to wash down a meal, it will be a Diet Coke. If you ever invite me out for "drinks," don't be offended if I select a non-alcoholic product.
Beer is fairly filling but it has relatively low alcohol content compared to some other drinks. So, in my opinion, it's a poor way to get drunk. Of course, I dislike beer to begin with. The only beer I've had that I actually liked was a "red beer" with almost no hops flavor, which I understand to mean it barely fits the definition of beer.
I'm more of a wine drinker and the occasional mixed drink or shot. When I drink, I do so both for the flavor and the intoxicating effect. I have no desire to get smashed, so that means no more than about three drinks at a time. I'm not sure how well my take on wine can carry over into a conversation about beer, but here goes. When I buy wine, my goal is a bottle no cheaper than $12 and no more expensive than $32–and the price point depends on the occasion. The reason for that price range is this: I can tell the difference between a cheap wine and an expensive wine, but the difference is small enough to only be worth a small amount of extra money. Some of my favorite wines are fairly simple in flavor profile and might be looked down upon by wine snobs, but that's perfectly fine with me. But I do try and branch out every so often in order to broaden my tastes. I tend to trust the classic European wine regions (such as the Rhone and Rhine valleys) but I also like to give the relative newcomers a shot too (such as white wines from Chile).
This is all a bit different from buying beer, mainly because almost everything is micro. There are winemakers you come to recognize, but they have only a small space at the liquor store, and the ones you've never heard of before have almost as much space. You're constantly noticing new labels, and what was awesome three years ago might not be all that great this year.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 26, 2018, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 26, 2018, 09:47:27 AMAnd, dollars to donuts, in 10 years B-M-C will still be around, and 95% of the micros will be long forgotten and the "I'm smarter than you" crowd will have been guiled into the next fad.
The micros will still be around. They're here to stay and the list of micros
that have disappeared over the past 20 or 30 years is short. What will probably disappear are the regional macros such as PBR and Schlitz, the ones on life support that are currently being propped up by the hipsters you enjoy sneering at as much as, well, all the other groups you enjoy sneering at.
I heard that PBR is going away soon. That's my go to beer when I drink it. I may have to switch to something like Naraggansett (sp.) They've improved it over the past few years. (I think they switched breweries.) Lately it's been merlot (and now eggnog) for me. I think I average 2 drinks a week, if that. I go through dry spells, so it may be less.
Quote from: jon daly on November 26, 2018, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 26, 2018, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 26, 2018, 09:47:27 AMAnd, dollars to donuts, in 10 years B-M-C will still be around, and 95% of the micros will be long forgotten and the "I'm smarter than you" crowd will have been guiled into the next fad.
The micros will still be around. They're here to stay and the list of micros
that have disappeared over the past 20 or 30 years is short. What will probably disappear are the regional macros such as PBR and Schlitz, the ones on life support that are currently being propped up by the hipsters you enjoy sneering at as much as, well, all the other groups you enjoy sneering at.
I heard that PBR is going away soon. That's my go to beer when I drink it. I may have to switch to something like Naraggansett (sp.) They've improved it over the past few years. (I think they switched breweries.) Lately it's been merlot (and now eggnog) for me. I think I average 2 drinks a week, if that. I go through dry spells, so it may be less.
I enjoy the taste of Old Style, I haven't had a PBR in years. The characters in 11/22/63 call Narragansett "Nasty Gansett."
Beer and its low alcohol content are a good thing when you're drinking for several hours on a Saturday or Sunday - if you're drinking cocktails or, worse, liquor with no mixer(s), you'll never last the whole day. Wine just makes me sleepy, so it's no use there.
Quote
I heard that PBR is going away soon.
Here is the story on that. As covered above, the beer industry used to be highly regionalized and there are lots of "fallen flag" brands. Except they are not quite totally fallen. A company named "Pabst" but with no relationship really to the actual brewer bought a lot of brand names up, Pabst, Jacob Best, Ballantine, Schlitz (including the still popular Schlitz Malt Liquor), Blatz, Old Milwaukee (still quite popular), Colt 45, St. Ides, Stroh, Old Style, Lone Star, Olympia, Rainier, Schmidt, National Bohemian, and many others.
They own no breweries at all. Back in the 90s, it closed all its breweries and signed a deal with Miller, which at the time had excess capacity because it had expanded too fast in an mostly failed attempt to overtake A-B, to make the brands for it. Pabst is really just a marketing firm, selling nostalgia beers it does not really make.
Well, a lot has changed. Millers has merged with Coors and then with Molson, and has no excess capacity. MCM really does not want to build more breweries, and is seeking to recover capacity for its own brands by ending the deal with Pabst. Which would make Pabst have to either go back to being an actual brewer, which it cannot afford; or find another contractor, which none are out there. Or go out of business.
Whole thing is tied up in court, with Pabst saying MCM has to keep making beer for it forever, because it would go out of business otherwise, and MCM taking the position that Lincoln freed the slaves. Who knows.
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2018, 09:58:26 PMBeer is fairly filling but it has relatively low alcohol content compared to some other drinks. So, in my opinion, it's a poor way to get drunk. Of course, I dislike beer to begin with. The only beer I've had that I actually liked was a "red beer" with almost no hops flavor, which I understand to mean it barely fits the definition of beer.
That's the kind of beer I like, especially this time of year, as it has an autumnal quality. It would have been pushing the malt flavours and perhaps using less floral/more earthy hops - nothing wrong with that.
It still has an reasonable amount of hops and bitterness (eg Marble Red Ale (https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/marble-red-ale/103450/) that talks about all the different hops it has has a high IBU of 70. Even something British like Hobgoblin (https://untappd.com/b/wychwood-brewery-hobgoblin-legendary-ruby-beer/5875)'s 32 isn't that low. However the flavours mentioned in the reviews leans a bit more on the malt side for both), but the seeking to balance the flavour by using more robust and darker malt (crystal, rather than pale - though then it's probably 90% the cheaper mass-produced pale malt) mellow that hop flavour out with sweetness. Aomething like an American Pale Ale could also have an IBU of 32 (which is at the low end of the 30-45 range for that style), but the malt flavours are less there, so it will taste more hoppy than Hobgoblin.
I only had a go at American Adjuncts for not pushing hops because many of them also don't push the malt (even adding rice or corn to dilute it), leading to a beer that doesn't taste strongly of either main flavouring ingredient - and then only as a point of order against the charge that "craft beer is for people who don't like the taste of beer".