UK beer scene

Reads 48884 • Replies 403 • Started Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:40:49 PM 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

Message AcctError62185 places 1 º 16:45 Fri 9/10/2010 Originally posted by tdtm82 Originally posted by haddonsman Originally posted by tdtm82 Originally posted by chriso You might find some useful figures at http://www.caskreport.co.uk/ The 2009/2010 report isn’t out until 27 September though. Of note Pete Brown has his own marketing company and has assisted with the likes of some major alcohol conglomerates like Diageo and InBev so not too sure how distorted this will be. I am not sure if his motives are entirely pro-craft beer or just for the sake of making money on an income and then spending it on craft beer which doesn’t make sense. I bet he once ate a Big Mac as well. Hanging’s too good for him. I’d tie him to a chair and make him listen to corporate conspiracy twaddle. Then he will know the meaning of the word pain. FFS Mental! Great post mate. +1, this is the sorta shit that makes this site truely effing metal!!!
Message haddonsman beers 1234 º places 56 º 03:02 Sat 9/11/2010 The stout and porter argument is a can of worms, but relevant to the contemporary beer scene. As the word ’stout’ is inextricably linked to Guinness for many drinkers, I wonder if there’s a trend amongst newer microbrewers in particular to call their darker beers ’porters’ in order to differentiate their product? ’Original porter’ sounds historic. ’Strong porter’ emphasises an alcohol kick. And, of course, ’hoppy porter’ is just another phrase fro Black IPA
Message InvalidStout 04:18 Sat 9/11/2010 Originally posted by tdtm82 After my recent Pete Brown findings I am loving this! I need to read this report. Which findings are those? That Pete Brown does marketing stuff for breweries for money? Most of us have known that for years. He also often writes columns in the trade press criticising the megabrewers and articles in the mainstream press pushing cask ale. I don’t understand this outbreak of Pete Brown hate. You are presumably lucky and only ever have to do things at work for clients whom you think are the bee’s knees.

Message MesandSim beers 7116 º places 35 º 04:25 Sat 9/11/2010 Originally posted by haddonsman The stout and porter argument is a can of worms, but relevant to the contemporary beer scene. As the word ’stout’ is inextricably linked to Guinness for many drinkers, I wonder if there’s a trend amongst newer microbrewers in particular to call their darker beers ’porters’ in order to differentiate their product? ’Original porter’ sounds historic. ’Strong porter’ emphasises an alcohol kick. And, of course, ’hoppy porter’ is just another phrase fro Black IPA But what about ’southern porter’ and ’brown porter’ or whatever the fuck those other vitally important, thoroughly legitimate styles are???
Message chriso P beers 7540 º places 736 º 05:18 Sat 9/11/2010 Originally posted by InvalidStout I don’t understand this outbreak of Pete Brown hate. Me neither. I can’t say I’ve actually read the report in detail. I just mentioned it because Christian asked for some figures and it contains some figures. The report does provide some publicity and support for cask ale, which is presumably what it is intended to do - countering the "cask is moribund" negativity promulgated by the mega-brewers who have no interest in promoting it. Obviously, like any report, it is going to reflect the interests of those who are "supporting" it (presumably meaning paying for it) which include CAMRA, SIBA and some of the larger brewers who have a commitment to cask ale. To suggest that because Pete Brown has done some work for the big drinks companies at some time, he is involved in some sort of conspiracy with them to advance their interests seems far fetched to say the least. I don’t always agree with everything he has written but he has seemed like an OK kind of guy when I’ve met him.
Message tdtm82 beers 1704 º places 138 º 05:31 Sat 9/11/2010 Originally posted by InvalidStout Originally posted by tdtm82 After my recent Pete Brown findings I am loving this! I need to read this report. Which findings are those? That Pete Brown does marketing stuff for breweries for money? Most of us have known that for years. He also often writes columns in the trade press criticising the megabrewers and articles in the mainstream press pushing cask ale. I don’t understand this outbreak of Pete Brown hate. You are presumably lucky and only ever have to do things at work for clients whom you think are the bee’s knees. My main problem is he is supporting the bigger wealth of major breweries by researching and marketing for them, this is what I perceive as another motive and against promoting just craft ale. I don’t trust people whom work for inbev and then criticise them in the next line when they are representing the craft beer market. Since when have I ever said about my clients being the bee’s knees. You don’t even know my line of work or the work I do. How can you justify that? I am deeply sceptical of people whom do one motive for craft beer yet their income is from the big conglomerates. This is NOT healthy for craft beer as it means their judgement may be biased. It is common sense that someone whom works for interbev on client projects yet writes a cask ale report can not be entirely independent.
Message MesandSim beers 7116 º places 35 º 06:36 Sat 9/11/2010 Originally posted by tdtm82 Originally posted by InvalidStout Originally posted by tdtm82 After my recent Pete Brown findings I am loving this! I need to read this report. Which findings are those? That Pete Brown does marketing stuff for breweries for money? Most of us have known that for years. He also often writes columns in the trade press criticising the megabrewers and articles in the mainstream press pushing cask ale. I don’t understand this outbreak of Pete Brown hate. You are presumably lucky and only ever have to do things at work for clients whom you think are the bee’s knees. My main problem is he is supporting the bigger wealth of major breweries by researching and marketing for them, this is what I perceive as another motive and against promoting just craft ale. I don’t trust people whom work for inbev and then criticise them in the next line when they are representing the craft beer market. Since when have I ever said about my clients being the bee’s knees. You don’t even know my line of work or the work I do. How can you justify that? I am deeply sceptical of people whom do one motive for craft beer yet their income is from the big conglomerates. This is NOT healthy for craft beer as it means their judgement may be biased. It is common sense that someone whom works for interbev on client projects yet writes a cask ale report can not be entirely independent. Thomas, your gung ho attitude is fair enough in some respects but I really think you are taking things a little too far here. This is like saying because I do design work for RBS that I have no place working on a private residential project, which let’s face it, would be downright silly. I agree, the two sides of his work do not go hand in hand, but neither do mine. Look at the respect Pete Brown gets, not just here, but all over and it’s respect coming from people who are worthy of respect themselves.

Message tdtm82 beers 1704 º places 138 º 06:50 Sat 9/11/2010 All I am referring to is how can we trust someone’s craft beer report when we already know his work with Inbev? I give up if the conclusion is yes we can trust someone whom works for Inbev yet promotes craft beer as well. I wouldn’t want to work for Inbev. I’m not picking a fight with anyone, or anyone whom works for big nationals, but I’m saying there are other motives for me which don’t really make sense. Did Michael Jackson do market reserach for Inbev? You don’t have to work for Inbev to become a major craft beer advocate. Although I respect Pete Brown’s writing ability and have met him, I do think it is unfortunate that he chooses to work for the giants. If he is doing that to bring them down then I take back everything I said. Speaking of Michael Jackson, The Beer Hunter film should be ready this fall! My back ground is ships; some very expensive ships, some MoD Ships and yes I have done presentation work for MoD related ocntracts.
Message InvalidStout 07:06 Sat 9/11/2010 I don’t know of another major beer writer who has openly proclaimed he is boycotting InBev like Pete Brown does here: http://petebrown.blogspot.com/2010/06/ugly-game.html , or called them "ugly, bullying" and "sinister". Course, maybe it’s a cunning ploy to hide the fact that he is really in InBev’s pocket.
Message Martyartie beers 1 º 07:41 Sat 9/11/2010 Originally posted by FatPhil Originally posted by Martyartie Originally posted by MesandSim So... Stouts and Porters are the same thing right??? Yes. You have been trolled. Most successfully. As I detail here. Anybody who tries to maintain there IS a real difference is making it up. Thanks for that. We’re now agreed, dogs and Rottweilers are the same thing. If you were to wish to make a claim that stouts and porters have always been the same thing, then _following the very similie you yourself use in the article_, you would then have to claim that Rottweilers are the same as dogs. (Or that your analogy was bollocks.) If you look at almost every one of your sections, you’ll find a statement to the effect that one of the two was considered to be a particular kind of the other one. Over time there was little consistency in this, and both styles have evolved in many and similar directions over time, so the total gamut of things called porter is the same as the total gamut of things called stouts. However, at most times in history the two terms were not mutually interchangable. From your article: "stout [meaning] strong porter" => terms not interchangeable "stout [meaning] top quality porter" => terms not interchangeable "Porter is a variety of stout" => terms not interchangeable "porter “a lowly brand of draught stout”" => terms not interchangeable "porter merely a sub-type" => terms not interchangeable And of course your article also includes these: "stouts ... would be stronger" "stouts continued to be stronger" "stout was originally stronger" If you believe your article supports a claim that they are the same, then you’re on drugs. Gratuitous insult is not the way to win arguments. In fact, it makes you appear an idiot. As does your misinterpretation of what I said. Read my piece again. What it says is that when porter first appeared, "stout" was simply the strong version of it, and "stout" and "strong porter" were synonyms. It then describes how differences DID appear between the two drinks, but only after about 140 years or so (though not, as it happens, in Ireland, only in Britain.) Porter then disappeared, and, when it was revived, attempts were made to delineate a difference between it and stout, based on artificial and ahistoric claims such as "stout contains roast barley, porter does not", which were not and never have been true. The only real difference between porter and stout used to be that stout was the strong version of porter. Now even that’s not true. Although the BJCP tries to lay down "rules" about the characteristics of different alleged "styles" of porter and stout, in the real world, as the table I included in my piece shows, the Venn diagram outline that includes modern porters occupies almost exactly the same space as the one that includes modern stouts. So: Stout used just to be the strong version of porter, and could also itself be called (and was called) porter. By about 1860 in Britain a difference was beginning to develop based on stout now containing a greater proportion of brown malt. But this is the first point at which "stout" as a general term of art could be taken to mean something different to "strong porter". After the First World War the strengths of all beer in the UK had plunged so that "stouts" were now the same strengths that porters used to be. When porter was revived in the 1970s, the first new porters were the same strength as almost all surviving stouts, and any difference between the two had vanished completely. Now - if you’ve got any actual evidence to contradict that, as opposed to aggressive baseless assertions couple with insults, do come back to this forum.