CAMRA chairman angry at BA magazine article

Reads 24719 • Replies 192 • Started Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:15:27 AM 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
 
SilkTork
beers 7382 º places 109 º 08:55 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by tdtm82
Ian, not all CAMRA members are as tuned in as you are on beer and this is the point Joris is making. They are denying dispensing choice and slaying keg as a choice format when it is actually appropriate for some styles.



I’m not clear what people mean when they say "keg". My understanding of keg is UK based, so it means filtered beer. I’m not quite sure why filtering would be an appropriate treatment for beer. Filtering removes flavour compounds, kills the beer, and takes away the natural carbonation so the fizz has to be replaced. I’m not sure how this can be seen as an appropriate choice for any beer style. It is a convenient process that stabilises the beer, but it is a business decision rather than a "craft" decision.

I agree with what everyone says that a filtered beer can taste wonderful, and that much of the interest in a beer comes from the brewer’s skills, the recipe and the ingredients rather than if it is filtered. And I drink LOTS of filtered beer and enjoy it. But filtering beer is not a way to make it taste better, and I don’t think it is right that people should argue that it does.

Would I rather have a filtered beer than a live one that has gone off. Yes, of course. But I would rather have the live one in prime condition than the filtered one. I think that brewers should be making more of an effort to ensure that beer is served live and in good condition, and it saddens me that there is such a strong argument from people that filtering beer should be promoted as a quality practise. Filtering should always be seen as the second choice not the appropriate one.

 
SilkTork
beers 7382 º places 109 º 08:57 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by harrisoni
Originally posted by jerc
Originally posted by harrisoniNo one from Camra has come up to me at a bar and said "you can’t drink that."


True, but it would take quite a pair of stones to approach a man who once set himself on fire at the pub and try and tell him what to drink!


Yeah, perhaps I should do that in front of the BSF stand at GBBF this year, dress up in orange robes, get a non-bottled conditioned beer in my hand and then set myself on fire again in protest that this isn’t a real beer. Get Royce to do the press bit and I’d be a star on YouTube in no time.

I have to admit though that being on fire really is no joke and I would have prefered not to have done it, even if it did provide some entertainment.


I’ve not heard this story. Is there a link?

 
JoeMcPhee
beers 11850 º places 543 º 09:05 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by SilkTork
Originally posted by tdtm82
Ian, not all CAMRA members are as tuned in as you are on beer and this is the point Joris is making. They are denying dispensing choice and slaying keg as a choice format when it is actually appropriate for some styles.



I’m not clear what people mean when they say "keg". My understanding of keg is UK based, so it means filtered beer. I’m not quite sure why filtering would be an appropriate treatment for beer. Filtering removes flavour compounds, kills the beer, and takes away the natural carbonation so the fizz has to be replaced. I’m not sure how this can be seen as an appropriate choice for any beer style. It is a convenient process that stabilises the beer, but it is a business decision rather than a "craft" decision.

I agree with what everyone says that a filtered beer can taste wonderful, and that much of the interest in a beer comes from the brewer’s skills, the recipe and the ingredients rather than if it is filtered. And I drink LOTS of filtered beer and enjoy it. But filtering beer is not a way to make it taste better, and I don’t think it is right that people should argue that it does.

Would I rather have a filtered beer than a live one that has gone off. Yes, of course. But I would rather have the live one in prime condition than the filtered one. I think that brewers should be making more of an effort to ensure that beer is served live and in good condition, and it saddens me that there is such a strong argument from people that filtering beer should be promoted as a quality practise. Filtering should always be seen as the second choice not the appropriate one.



Depending on the brewery involved, keg beer need not be filtered. It’s pretty common in North America for kegged stuff to be unfiltered. It’s not keg-conditioned (no priming charge) and it’s still force carbonated, but it hasn’t necessarily been force filtered. Other breweries do filter after fermentation - it’s completely up to the brewer.

 
Beersiveknown
beers 5380 º places 179 º 09:26 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by JoeMcPhee
Originally posted by tdtm82
This Conference believes in the beneficial health effects of real ale and believes that other ale products with chemical and gas additives can have a detrimental effect on public health. Conference believes that the differences between the two are significant and measurable, but acknowledges that research on this area has so far been minimal. Conference therefore resolves that CAMRA shall work with other interested parties to quantify the differences in health terms between real ale and other ale products.

Proposed by West Lancashire Branch

MOTION 14 - Passed

source - Camra homepage


Wow - what a pile of rubbish.


it was motion 13 and was defeated, members paper arrived in post today

 
hopscotch
beers 11919 º places 307 º 09:46 Tue 5/31/2011

I hate flat, luke-warm cask ale!

Force carbonate the world!

Is CAMRA angry at me now?

 
cgarvieuk
beers 35413 º places 453 º 09:48 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by hopscotch
I hate flat, luke-warm cask ale!

Force carbonate the world!

Is CAMRA angry at me now?


well i am. but i hate fizzy beer

 
SilkTork
beers 7382 º places 109 º 09:57 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by kmweaver
Originally posted by kmweaver
Originally posted by otakuden
so yes, CAMRA protects a specific type of craft beer known in England as real ale. is there room for ingenuity and creativity within real ale? absolutely. but will CAMRA allow for it, or is CAMRA caught up in itself and unable to see the craft for the ale and the ale for the craft.


That’s basically the question here.


Actually (before SilkTork or someone else jumps on the opportunity to correct me), it’s still even a bit more complicated than this.

I’m going to go barbecue and drink some beer.


I think the difficulty is in the individual conceptions of "craft beer" as Ken suggested ealier. I think people in this thread and in the wider debate have differing understandings of "craft beer" and of "cask ale".

Some people misunderstand "cask ale" to be simply a serving method.

What people misunderstand as "craft beer" is harder to pin down.

Cask ale is like bottle conditioned ale. It is unfiltered. It is not difficult to define or identify once you grasp the simple concept: cask ale/bottle conditioned ale/real ale = unfiltered.

Craft beer is any product made by a brewer defined by the Brewers Association as being a craft brewer - that is any brewer who is a member of the Brewers Association. Within the association are different brewers who make a range of beers from brilliant, bottle conditioned beer to insipid filtered beer.

That a beer is cask ale doesn’t mean that the brewer is any good, or the ingredients are any good, or that the recipe will be any good.

That a beer is in the cask is no guarantee of quality.

That a beer is made by a member of the Brewers Association is equally no guarantee of quality.


However, people like the term "craft brewery", and I think they use it loosely to apply to any brewery they like (as long as the brewery is not a global monster). Craft beer has become - "beer that I like which is not made by a multi-national brewery". Some of the beer they like is filtered and kegged, but that doesn’t matter because it’s still tasty. Because filtered beer can be tasty they would like CAMRA to stop campaigning for live beer so that the filtered beer they enjoy can be part of a wider CAMRA campaign for "good beer".

Part of the problem with that, is the concept of "good beer" is going to vary between individuals. "Good beer" is usually a synonym for beer you enjoy. There is no absolute, universal definition of "good beer", even though many people would like there to be one.

 
Beersiveknown
beers 5380 º places 179 º 10:10 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by SilkTork
Originally posted by kmweaver
Originally posted by kmweaver
Originally posted by otakuden
so yes, CAMRA protects a specific type of craft beer known in England as real ale. is there room for ingenuity and creativity within real ale? absolutely. but will CAMRA allow for it, or is CAMRA caught up in itself and unable to see the craft for the ale and the ale for the craft.


That’s basically the question here.


Actually (before SilkTork or someone else jumps on the opportunity to correct me), it’s still even a bit more complicated than this.

I’m going to go barbecue and drink some beer.


I think the difficulty is in the individual conceptions of "craft beer" as Ken suggested ealier. I think people in this thread and in the wider debate have differing understandings of "craft beer" and of "cask ale".

Some people misunderstand "cask ale" to be simply a serving method.

What people misunderstand as "craft beer" is harder to pin down.

Cask ale is like bottle conditioned ale. It is unfiltered. It is not difficult to define or identify once you grasp the simple concept: cask ale/bottle conditioned ale/real ale = unfiltered.

Craft beer is any product made by a brewer defined by the Brewers Association as being a craft brewer - that is any brewer who is a member of the Brewers Association. Within the association are different brewers who make a range of beers from brilliant, bottle conditioned beer to insipid filtered beer.

That a beer is cask ale doesn’t mean that the brewer is any good, or the ingredients are any good, or that the recipe will be any good.

That a beer is in the cask is no guarantee of quality.

That a beer is made by a member of the Brewers Association is equally no guarantee of quality.


However, people like the term "craft brewery", and I think they use it loosely to apply to any brewery they like (as long as the brewery is not a global monster). Craft beer has become - "beer that I like which is not made by a multi-national brewery". Some of the beer they like is filtered and kegged, but that doesn’t matter because it’s still tasty. Because filtered beer can be tasty they would like CAMRA to stop campaigning for live beer so that the filtered beer they enjoy can be part of a wider CAMRA campaign for "good beer".

Part of the problem with that, is the concept of "good beer" is going to vary between individuals. "Good beer" is usually a synonym for beer you enjoy. There is no absolute, universal definition of "good beer", even though many people would like there to be one.


A brilliant elucidation of the key misconceptions here.

 
SilkTork
beers 7382 º places 109 º 10:10 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by SilkTork


It would be useful to see that article, and if somebody could scan it and upload it somewhere that would be great.



Ah - I’ve now got to Tim’s post. Excellent!

 
SilkTork
beers 7382 º places 109 º 10:25 Tue 5/31/2011

Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by SilkTork
I think there has been some misunderstanding going on Joris. Your remarks seem to imply that you feel that the chairman was speaking on behalf of the membership to the general public. He was not. He was speaking as an individual to CAMRA members.

Oh, I thought that was his Chairman’s address. Obviously, I don’t know how the CAMRA national executive committee / full time staff run things but, having been involved in chairing and speaking on behalf of executive committees at conferences a fair few times in my union days, there was usually a "line to take" agreed collectively for this sort of thing. Certainly, in my experience, executive committee members, chairman or otherwise, were not allowed to speak in a personal capacity. Or, at least, if they did it would be regarded as a serious breach of protocol.


That’s a good point. But it didn’t sound like a chairman’s report to the public, it sounded like the individual elected to the chair talking to the people who elected him. He ends by saying "while I have anything to do with it we will remain the campaign for real ale". Be interesting to know how his speech came about - was it simply a welcome to the AGM, and while I am here let me tell you about my holiday in America....

The official summary of the event is here, and it doesn’t appear to include the chairman’s speech. There is a formal chief executive report - and that would seem to fit in more with your notion of an agreed collective view.