“Bad” Beer: The Subjectively Objective Perspective

There’s a strange phenomenon in our industry that most of us are aware of and may even be a part of. That is the concept of “Bad” beer. A beer style or an individual beer may be brewed as intended, objectively clean, and still called “Bad” in the eyes of many. This rhetoric is echoed constantly in social media groups, at pubs, taprooms, and brewery tasting rooms. I have some thoughts.

(Note: These thoughts are meant for those with some experience and are not intended for those who are new to beer and are barely dipping their taste buds into this world. This is not meant for those who are trying beer or a particular style for the first time. That is another discussion altogether and those learning should be shown encouragement.)

I’ll just come right out and say what is undoubtedly an unpopular sentiment and I’ll say it as objectively as I can with my knowledge and experience as a basis: There is no inherent “Bad” beer… unless we are talking about one’s perspective and subjectivity.

This leads me to the point of this write-up: subjective vs objective. In this context, subjectivity is driven by individual taste preferences, while objectivity is based on predefined parameters. It may be true that we all have our preferred tastes and perceptions of what we find enjoyable, which is based on personal experience and is usually distinct from person to person. By contrast, however, objectivity holds to a notion even if one disagrees solely on preference or even if one disregards it completely.

Coming from a position of logic, experience, and understanding, I am convinced that “Bad” beer, when looked at objectively, is when it is noted to have identifiable and perceivable compounds that should not be detected in any beer. We are talking about compounds such as Isovaleric Acid, Butyric Acid, Trans-2-Nonanal, Chlorophenols, Mercaptans, Metallic, Acetic Acid, and so on. These flavors or sensations are largely unpleasant (some are unpleasant only in large concentrations) and are indicators that something has gone wrong somewhere.

Other flavor compounds are not so severe, however, and are even commonplace. During my sensory panels and lectures, I take the time to point out what compounds are acceptable in certain beer styles where they are otherwise out-of-style. For example, the ester Isoamyl Acetate in Weissbier, Dunkels Weissbier, Weizenbock, and Kristalweizen is not only common but is welcomed, usually prominent, and a defining feature of the styles. While styles like Dubbel, Tripel, or Roggenbier (and others) may or may not have varying degrees of Isoamyl Acetate. If present in an American Wheat Beer or Witbier, it’s not-to-style as defined by guidelines. The same is true with nearly any other style because high ester production is usually an indicator of improper fermentation temperatures. Yet the yeast strains for the styles mentioned (along with their wort composition) above produce Isoamyl Acetate in high perceivable quantities.

Another example is the dreaded D-word; the most common undesirable flavor and arguably the most well-known fermentation-derived unwanted compound, Diacetyl. Even this compound is acceptable in some European Ales (Bitters, most Stouts, Porter, Old Ale, Flanders Red, Oud Bruin, Wee Heavy, Irish Red, and more) so long as it is in a low perceivable quantity. Even the mighty Lagerbier, isn’t left unscathed. The Czech Lager family, including Czech Premium Pale Lager (better known as Czech/Bohemian Pilsner), and the German Kellerbiers are allowed to have small amounts of Diacetyl. A perceivable presence of Diacetyl doesn’t make those beers or styles “Bad” even though we have a negative connotation in our minds about the compound.

Lightstruck flavor development is often used as a reason certain beers are referred to as “Bad.” Most of the time, this is a result of packaging in a clear or green bottle and usually, marketing is to blame. For those beers, I’d recommend finding it on draught or canned. Now, if that beer or style is still not to one’s liking while not skunked up, then we are back to the subjectivity of the matter.

Sometimes it’s the beer style taking the heat being called inherently “Bad.” Light American Lager is possibly the best example of this. It’s not uncommon for a beer drinker to be taunting and scoffing at a can, bottle, or faucet market (tap handle) of Natural Light, Miller Lite, Coors Light, Bud Light, and the like. I can’t help but ask, “Why the insistence of mockery? Is it towards the style or the beer itself? If it’s the beer, what’s wrong with it? If it’s the style, the question still stands; what’s wrong with it?” Never mind the DMS and Acetaldehyde that are usually present in those beers, which are acceptable in the usual low levels found in styles such as this.

If there’s an inherent and obvious unpleasant flavor in the beer (one that makes you spit it out or push it back from your nose in disgust), then I’m all ears and open for discussion. However, if it’s the beer style that is simply not appreciated by preference and is still being talked down upon, I’d be hard-pressed to ask even more questions to affirm one’s claim that the style itself is "Bad." The beer is often as the brewer intended and/or it is brewed for the enjoyment of the clientele it is meant for. If, for example, there is some aspect of the beer that places it out of style (for judging purposes) but otherwise no perceivable undesirable characters, would it still be considered a “Bad” beer? Think about Pastry Stouts, Milkshake IPA, Smoothy-Style Sours, or as mentioned above, American Light Lager.

Hypothetically, if one desires to enjoy a Belgian Golden Strong Ale for instance, and proceeds to order a malt-balanced beer with just a touch of bitterness, clean lager fermentation, golden in color, average ABV, and notes of crackers and dried hay from the grainy-sweet malt, and then complains that it’s a “Bad” beer, I’d question to explain your reasoning for ordering that Helles. Suppose someone enjoys Stouts and Porters and can’t stand anything with highly perceived hop bitterness, the Pale Ale they ordered is not going to suit their subjective palate. If it’s to expand one’s horizons, then great! Enjoy the journey.

Perhaps it is how we associate certain flavor compounds and the way we have been thought, or teaching them to sensory panelists that can at least partially explain how some of us act. In her book "How to Taste: A Guide to Discovering Flavor and Savoring Life," Mandy Naglich points out the importance of how we link new flavors and potential pitfalls when we associate them in a negative context. Using words like "Flaw" and "Off-Flavor" about a compound when we first learn about it will ruin our first impression. If we tie it to a bad memory, it will be difficult to shake off. I, unfortunately, was not only a victim of this, but I came to this realization far too late after teaching so many Off-Flavor sessions to first-time tasters. I will no longer call them "Off-Flavor Panels."

Not finding a beer or style enjoyable based on subjectivity is understandable and perfectly fine. However, if the two scenarios above are done on purpose to blast it publicly on social media, in person, on BeerAdvocate, or Untappd just for the check-ins, is, to put it bluntly, disrespectful., Not just to the audience, but to the brewers who worked hard to bring those beers to market.

Using one’s subjectivity to state something fact, in this context stating a beer is “Bad” on an anecdotal basis, is logically incorrect. The honest way to go about it is to simply acknowledge the personal perspective of the beer or style is not to one’s liking, preference, or enjoyment and move on. That is, of course, if the beer is objectively sound.

One final word on the subject. Just because a particular beer or style is popular with some and/or is common geographically does not mean it should be adored by all beer drinkers. On the flip side, one should not feel like an outcast for not finding favor in such products, either. If we all realize and recognize this, the beer world would be an even better place and might once again become the friendly, welcoming, sociable environment I remember falling in love with.

Admittedly, I was once a “Bad” beer proponent. I’ve since come to recognize the fallacy of my position and have subsequently shifted my stance. That does not mean every beer and style is to my liking; on the contrary, I have come to realize that some beer styles I once gave god-tier status to are now some of my least favorites. That may be an unlikely outcome and isn’t something that should happen, but I instead welcome enlightenment. It allows me to be as honest a beer drinker as I can be, and I love that.

Be kind, fellow humans. It’s just beer! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be enjoying the hell out of this Coors Light.

Cheers!

-Gilbert “Charlie” Perez, Advanced Cicerone®