This is a topic that’s arisen socially quite a lot recently, in one guise or another. Perhaps it says something about the current buoyant state of the real ale market that the question can be asked at all? I suspect even three or four years ago there would have been no need.
A couple of weekends ago the wife and I were sat in one of our favourite pubs and worked across the six pumps. All the beers were in reasonable condition, at the very least, but two of them were downright unpleasant regarding flavour and the other four very bland, with little distinguishing character. Although it wasn’t quite a ‘John Smith’s man’ moment, my wife commented ‘Wouldn’t it be nice just to have something we know?’ To my surprise, I actually felt the same way.
With yet two more microbreweries rumoured to be opening soon in West Yorkshire, I live in a county that offers incredible choice, both from local producers and those available from surrounding areas. However, what is that choice based on? I think there’s a reasonable case for saying that a fair percentage of beers produced just aren’t up to snuff and that ‘ticking’ culture has a lot to answer for. The ingrained belief that new beers drive the market is debatably backfiring.
In my opinion there are two main problems. Some micros don’t have enough technical skill or experience to offer consistent quality in their brews; and secondly, by constantly initiating miniscule changes to hopping rates etc to create a ‘new’ beer, a ‘core range’ of beers for the drinker to latch onto and appreciate is often missing, or neglected. Of course, beers do evolve and there has to be room for experimentation. For example, I particularly admire how Roosters and Abbeydale use the respective Outlaw and Dr. Morton’s labels for their more left-field beers.
I’m sure some will argue that the market is self-regulating, regarding which breweries will survive and that the occasional boring session in a pub is a small price to pay for such diversity. However, I’m not entirely convinced. What do others think?