What's Your Problem?

Jason and Todd Alstrom put an editorial in the latest issue of Beeradvocate magazine titled "The Problem with Session Beers in the US." They've had a passive-aggressive stance toward session beers from the early days, and this piece fits neatly into that. Because they have such a large bully-pulpit with the magazine, I felt I should at least respond. Because I only see ONE problem the way that they do; the rest of their problems are manufactured, questionable, or just plain wrong.

Pricing. This is a horse they've beaten well past expiration: if session beers are lower alcohol, they should be less expensive. Other people say it too. But we've had that discussion, and the truth is, lower alcohol beers don't really cost that much less to make or sell. Materials -- hops, malt, spices -- are only part of a beer's cost; there's energy, labor, transport, taxes, promotion, facility costs, debt service... If a pint of 4.5% pilsner is a good pint, a good-tasting beer, why should it be cheaper than a 6.5% IPA? Because it cost a nickel less to make? Or because it has less alcohol? I thought craft beer was all about flavor. If it's about the alcohol, well...why are you drinking it, again? Maybe you ought to think about that. In any case, I'd certainly encourage any brewpub operator or bar manager to think about dropping pints a buck just to encourage the multiple sales sessions are about, but it's not about session being a somehow "lesser" beer. We don't buy that, no matter what the price.

USA! Americans don't understand what session beer is, they say; we're not the UK (this ignores the session beers in Belgium and the Czech Republic, of course, but we'll let that go). Our drinking culture is different. Well...the biggest selling beer in America is Bud Light. It's 4.2% ABV. We get lower alcohol beer; the session beers we're supporting are lower alcohol too, only they have a lot more flavor. What's so hard to understand? We don't need to be told a story, as the Alstroms suggest. Judging from the success of beers like Founders All Day IPA, all we have to do is get a choice. And boys? Seven bucks for a "faux-pint" of ANY "beer that might be good" is more about the problem with craft beer, not session beer.

A Session What? There's no definition of a session beer, they say. Well, we're working on it. I think that the BeerAdvocate 5% definition isn't definitive enough; I like 4.5% better, and 4.0% is good too. But look at how long it took to define "craft beer." Oops...the Brewers Association is apparently still working on that one. Doesn't seem to be hurting sales, though. Yeah. Another non-problem.

Boring! I'll quote them here, because I agree with a little bit of this...but not much. "There's a serious lack of creativity when it comes to session beers. It's either an attempt at an old beer style, or a weak, watery failure. Even worse, some fool (or genius) created the 'Session IPA,' and it's taking over the session beer category thanks to bandwagoning brewers releasing hop water into the market in order to capture twice the hype."

This really is a 'Wow, where to begin' moment. "An attempt at an old beer style?" What, like much of "craft brewing?" Pale ale, porter, Pilsner, imperial stout, milk stout, Baltic porter, and yes, even IPA: all attempts at 'old beer styles.' What's so bad about that? We're adding mild, bitter, grisette, and Berliner Weisse to the list, oh horrors! If there are weak, watery failures, well, honey, there are overhopped, unbalanced monsters out there too (and they'll cost you a lot more, despite your fear of overpriced session beer).

Then there's the one spot where I agree with them: "Session IPA." It is taking over session beer, and it's about making money, and it's about a lack of real creativity and the worst kind of monkey-see monkey-do brewing. But...in a time where we have IPA, DIPA, TIPA, Black IPA, Red IPA, White IPA, Wheat IPA, Rye IPA, Blue and Green IPAs, and perhaps IPAs as yet undreamt of just waiting to be born...why single out Session IPA? Again, this is a failure of craft beer, not session beer. If the Alstroms really want to be muckrakers, and call for a better brighter world of beer, they need to step up and tackle the real problems.

Snobs. And this is the one that baffles me. "...we find that many proponents of session beer are snobs." Really? Where on earth do you find that? The people I know who are proponents of session beer are mostly just trying to get a couple taps, a few more choices. Complain about people who don't get session beer? Well, yeah, if those are the people who are keeping session beers off the taps! That's not snobbery, that's the same kind of frustration we felt back in the late 1980s when no one wanted to sell craft beer. Just put some on, we'll drink it! Sure enough...Founders makes a lower alcohol beer; it's now their flagship. Odell makes a session seasonal; sells so much they take it year-round. Brewers are finding that if they make a good session beer, it's going to sell well. Of course it is: it's a good beer.

They conclude by saying that these problems have to change for session beers to be truly accepted in the US. Well...okay. I mean, it's not like it's happening already, without the Alstroms' permission or anything. Heh. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha!

Sorry. In the meantime, tell me: what's it going to take for sour beers to be "truly accepted" in the US? Because while I love 'em, I think there's a much longer list of why they ain't going mainstream anytime soon. Gonna write that editorial next issue, guys?

A Landmark...and an Issue: how hard-line do we need to be?

Session Beer? Or not?

On Friday, Brewbound reported that Michigan brewer Founders had acknowledged that the relatively new All Day IPA (one of the exploding number of so-called "session IPAs," well-noted here by Notch Brewing's Chris Lohring) introduced as a seasonal in March, had achieved year-round status and, by a solid margin, established itself as the brewery's best-selling beer. The Brewbound story said that:

Through the end of June, Founders had sold over 130,000 case equivalents (CE’S) of All Day IPA since March 1. Sales of its next best-selling beer, the year-round Centennial IPA, have only barely eclipsed 102,000 CE’s.

Well, boom! Founders CEO Mike Stevens expanded on that, saying that he expects All Day IPA to account for nearly 40% of the brewery's total production in 2014, that the folks at Founders "are looking at this brand as a category leader in the session ale category,” and, significantly, "even though it’s called ‘All Day,’ the most important words on that label are ‘session ale.’...It’s an underserved category and All Day isn’t taking away from what is really great about well-made craft beer.” The All Day label illo is now the opening illo on the Founders website, even.

Which is causing me some seriously mixed emotions. Because while I'm thoroughly excited that a brewery celebrated for its big beers -- Devil Dancer, Breakfast Stout, Dirty Bastard, Double Trouble -- brewed a lower-strength beer and found that it sold like mad... That beer is 4.7% ABV, just over the 4.5% ABV upper limit the Session Beer Project recognizes as "session beer." ARGH!
 
So do we celebrate? Or do we tear out our hair and weep and moan, because "session beer" is tagged on a 4.7%er? Do I say, "Oh, hell, it was just an arbitrary limit anyway...yeah, it's session beer, and WE WIN!" Is this the end of the session beer universe?

Well, no, it's not the end of the world, and no, I'm not going to tear out my hair. I already said that, here. And I'm going to celebrate a little bit, because of that "the most important words on that label are ‘session ale.’" quote. But yeah, I'm gonna hold the line on this. I'd rather see All Day IPA at 4.5% or less; sure, I would, if they're going to put "session ale" on the label. 

And I'm pretty sure we will see very successful beers at 4.5% and less, and fairly soon. If this IS as hot a category as Stevens seems to think it is -- and I think he's right, been thinking that for a while now -- other brewers are going to be jumping in -- and they are; as Lohring says, it's easier hop on a train than it is to build one -- and some of them are going to differentiate themselves by getting great flavor out of beers that are under 4.5%. And they're going to serve them in larger glasses, and they're going to price them lower (not because they're significantly cheaper to make, but they may see that as a marketing cost), and they're going to change craft beer. Really, I think there's a real chance of that.

So I'm not going to celebrate All Day IPA as a session beer -- though I'm happy to drink it -- but I'm going to take its success as a harbinger. And I'm going to encourage other brewers to kick its ass by making a beer that's just as good, just as interesting...and under 4.6%. I know they can do it; they
already are.

Is Joe Sixpack®™ kidding? Or is he right?

Don Russell, who writes the Joe Sixpack column in the Philadelphia Daily News, is not what you'd call a huge friend of session beer. While he did write a column for Session Beer Day last year, he ended the column with this strangely boozy bit of snark:

It's an admirable goal, even if it ignores the obvious (if distasteful) alternative: Drink fewer beers. Which points to session beer's more troublesome challenge. Craft beer's success is at least partly due to its potency. Small brewers differentiated themselves from macro-brew conglomerates by offering full-flavored ales and lagers whose higher prices were justified because you didn't have to drink as much to feel the buzz.

Consumers may rightly feel they're not getting their money's worth if the alcohol content is lower, especially since the new wave of session beers are not substantially cheaper than higher-alcohol varieties.

And that, friends, is why Jack Cade declared small beer a felony.

As I've said, I wasn't aware craft beers were more expensive because they were strong (especially since there is no graduated tax on ABV, and malt is well under half of the cost of a pint on the bar, usually under a quarter), I thought we'd been told it was because of smaller-scale operations and the hand-crafted care they were made with. Then we find out from Don that the price is about how much you have to drink to feel the buzz? Well. Enlightening. (Or not: check this explanation of the comparative cost of big beer and session beer by someone who actually pays the bills.)

Of course, this is the guy who showed up last year at a session beer panel discussion -- featuring some of the real stars of craft beer bar ownership and management on the East Coast --  as a semi-official representative of Philly Beer Week and stunned a previously happy crowd to silence by telling them that "session beers" were unnecessary, ridiculous, and somehow vaguely disrespectful of craft beer's heritage. It was a special moment.

So I wasn't surprised to see another sideways slap at session beer in his column yesterday, in a tongue-in-cheek look at styles the GABF had somehow "missed" in their 142 categories of beer styles. He listed such recognizable clumps as "Chick Beer," and "Cult Beer," and "Imported Beer."And then we have:

Session Beer. "Any style of beer . . . [whose] drinkability is a character in the overall balance." Wait a minute . . . I'm not making that up. That's an actual Brewers Association head-scratching definition of an invented style that can smell, taste or feel like anything, as long as it's weak enough to drink all night. Aroma, flavor and body are reminiscent of a far stronger and superior beer.

And you look at that, and you get a bit pissed about that last sentence, right? "...a far stronger and superior beer." Superior because it's stronger? Kind of revealing, maybe.

But I've decided to look at this in the light of the Brewers Association definition that Russell quotes, because I've got real problems with it myself. The BA came up with this category as an apparent direct mirror image of the Other Strong Ale Or Lager category, which is where you go when you've got an Imperial Bitter, or a Triple Altbier (both of which I've encountered in judging that category at the GABF...). So when you have a Half-IPA, or a Baby Barleywine, or a Session Saison, this is where you go. I guess.

And I'll agree with Russell in that case: generally, these beers are echoes of a superior beer. The "session IPAs" I've sampled are overbalanced; the small saisons are often over-spiced; and the occasional bourbon barrel-aged small beers I've had...well, I'd have much rather just had the bourbon, thank you. There is a whole class of lower-alcohol beers out there today that just don't get it. You can't make a beer session-strength by simply cutting back on the malt. You have to carefully balance things, maybe even amp the malt a bit and ease up on the attenuation.

My hat is off, for instance, to Stone's Levitation. It doesn't blow my mouth open with hops, it's been carefully tweaked till it's a hoppy session-strength ale, not a "session IPA," and they wisely didn't call it that. A grisette is a nicely-balanced beer in the general manner of a saison, but powered for all-afternoon drinking.

So I'm going to go along with this one, Don. You can't make a session beer by just simple dialing down. There's more to it than that, just like you can't make a high-mileage car by simply cutting two cylinders off a V6; you've got to make a different car, built and geared to the power you have (believe me, as a guy who owns an old 4-cylinder Saab that really REALLY needs a turbo, I understand this). This idea is a silly one.

"Session beer" is not a style, any more than "extreme beer" is. (Or was, I hear that term less every day, it seems.) It's a whole group of beers, made to a variety of styles. That's why I like it; I like variety with my variety.

Do We Need Session Beer?

Is this the drinker of so-called "Session Beer"?

Do We Need Session Beer?

Or is it already here? It's an interesting point that came up in the discussion that Session Beer Day engendered -- which is, after all, the whole point of this thing. It came up again at the Session Beer Panel I joined at Farmer's Cabinet during Philly Beer Week, when Don "Joe Sixpack" Russell told us all that in his opinion, session beers were unnecessary, ridiculous, and somehow a kind of treachery to the great bigger beers that brought us all into craft beer.

It made me think. Is there really a need for a Session Beer Day, a call for more session beer, or even the term?

Because apparently the thinking goes 'Hey, we're already there.' What's the biggest-selling craft beer? Samuel Adams Boston Lager. Well, it's 4.9% ABV. What about other big-selling and readily available craft beers? Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? 5.6%, bigger than 'normal,' but hardly a headknocker. New Belgium Fat Tire? 5.2%. Boulevard Unfiltered Wheat? 4.4%. Not even craft, how about imports? Guinness? 4.2%. Newcastle Brown? 4.7%.

Good God, maybe they're right! Those mostly don't fall into my definition of "session beer," or into that of the hardline Brits' at all, but still -- the argument goes -- they're not that far off. In asking for beers under 4.5%, they seem to think, we're really just pushing things a bit far and asking for something that isn't really needed...or wanted. We're creating a desire that doesn't really exist, calling for something that isn't really needed.

-----------------------------

Not surprisingly, I disagree. First off, go into any specialty beer bar and check the ABV levels. With a few exceptions (like Memphis Taproom, Deep Ellum, The Diamond, Piper's Pub, and some others), it has been my experience that the beers on tap start at 5.6% and go up from there. I'm talking about places that have 24, 50, even 90 taps, and there are scarcely three of those taps that are under 5%. If there is a beer under 5%, it's one of the ones listed above. Nothing wrong with those, but...how come all the variety and fun goes to the big beers? And how come the folks who want big beers get plenty of choices -- most of which seem to be pretty similar, but still -- and we get a bare handful?

The Session Beer Project, before I took on the cause of lower-alcohol, was originally about getting attention for the everyday beers, the flagships, the forgotten favorites that didn't get press love because they were...successful, and made every day or every week. As I used to say about the futility of writing about Budweiser, it's not the flavor (or lack of it), it's the monotony. What would I write? "Hey, this batch tastes just like the last one."

But then I realized that there was a segment of the market that got even less love, even less attention: the lower alcohol beers, those under 5%. And as Fortnight Brewing recently put it so well in their mission statementesque website, strongly declaring why they would not put "session" on a beer unless it were 4% or less (which is fine with me; 4 < 4.5!), you want a "lower alcohol" beer to be definitely lower in alcohol than a standard beer:

The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, as well as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention both define “one drink” to be a 12-ounce glass of beer of about 5% alcohol.  So if 5% is the standard, it makes sense to believe that for a beer to be a session beer, it must definitely be below this limit.  How low is often up for debate, and we won’t bother getting into that.

I do get into that, of course, but I'm a writer: it's my job. And I have taken on the project of getting attention, respect, and love for those lower alcohol beers. It doesn't surprise me that there's resistance -- though the smattering of hostility the idea has encountered baffles me, frankly -- but now that things are starting to turn...that doesn't surprise me, either.

After all, craft beer -- microbrewed beer -- encountered plenty of resistance when it started. Who needs it? We have beer. "What's wrong wit de beer we got? I mean, the beer we got drink pretty good, don't it?" I've noticed that a LOT of the criticism of session beer from craft beer enthusiasts -- "beer geeks," if I may -- sounds just like those early criticisms, and I find this funny, ironic, and ultimately...quite satisfying. It's how I know we're on the right track.

Because in these days of extreme double sour fresh-hopped wild beers...there are a solid number of us who like to simply drink good beer without paying through the nose for it, or going to extreme measures to find it, or carefully, slowly sipping it so we don't get thrashed, or stopping the conversation every three sentences to point out yet another nuance we've discovered. I do not say that this is better than other types of beer enjoyment. I do not say that I cannot do this with stronger beers. I do not say that standard and over-strength beers are unnecessary, or silly, or dangerous, or that they're giving craft beer a bad name. All I'm saying is that the lower-alcohol option is just as nice, just as valid, just as "crafty," and just as much good beer -- when done right, of course -- as are the big beers...when they're done right, of course.

Is session beer already here? Increasingly, it is...and now that we've had some success in getting recognition for it -- yeah, I'm declaring a certain amount of "Mission Accomplished," dangerous though we know that is! -- we'll be here to make sure it stays that way. I don't want to see session beer jump the shark, I don't want to see the definition of session beer become diluted to uselessness in an attempt to include every brewer and every beer. Sorry: your 5.2% pale ale is not a session beer just because the rest of your line is over 8%. Sorry: your 5.6% IPA is not a session beer just because "in this state, anything under 6% is a session beer."

The happy fact is, "session beer" has become recognizable enough, and trendy enough, that brewers want to have one, because people want to buy them. It's our job to remind them that it takes more than a name and a label to make a session beer. It takes some honesty, it takes the will to do it right, and it takes the guts to make it under 4.5% -- or under 4%, if that's your guideline -- and put it out there to see if your fans think it's worth drinking. Because there are people out there who really do want lower alcohol beer, and not just "lower than a big beer" in alcohol. Make a great-tasting beer at that kind of level, and you'll probably find customers. Find a great-tasting beer at that kind of level, and you'll probably...have more. Cheers!

More session beer-friendly press

Joshua Bernstein gets it right -- with five beers under 4.5% -- in this piece on the Food Republic website. And there's a nice little tip of the hat to the SBP, too:

Named because you can savor several of them in a drinking session, this loose category of lower-alcohol beers (usually 4.5 percent ABV and below), following the guidelines at the Session Beer Project blog, dials down the booze but still retains plenty of aroma and flavor. In other words, they’re the perfect brews for sipping by the six-pack at the beach or a backyard BBQ.

Note, session-deniers: "this loose category of lower-alcohol beers." I've run into several nay-sayers lately who have been telling me -- and the world -- that session beer isn't really a category, because it's just about ABV. Ahem. You're missing the point. "Session beer" is not a GABF "category," it's not a "style." It is an identifier, a guideline to handily point out the flavorful beers with lower-alcohol. I'd say, "and that's all it is," but that would be denigrating!

The DING Question: am I riddling the very fabric of the session beer universe?

The DING question has to be faced, and now, the day before Session Beer Day, seems to be a good time to do so. DING (he uses the sobriquet whenever he talks about beer, so I’ll do the same) is a session hardliner: he firmly believes that 4.0% is the top limit for session, period, and seizes every opportunity to make his point. Tirelessly. He believes that the 4.5% cap I’ve put on it here on the blog — and I’d remind everyone again that it’s just me and my reasoning — is not only wrong, but breaks tradition to the point of allowing much stronger beers to call themselves “session beers.” 

I disagree, of course. Yet I have to echo DING’s sentiments from a post on his blog two days ago, where he talked about meeting me for beers at Memphis Taproom recently (we wound up drinking Half Acre Daisy Cutter, and enjoying the hell out of it; not every beer is session beer, even for us, you know?): I found him to be affable, authentic, passionate, and not at all the wild-eyed fanatic some think he is. Simply put, the man knows his beer, loves beer and pub culture passionately, and is simply stating what he believes. We got along famously. Also, he insisted on buying the beer, which means he’s a damned gentleman!

That said...I felt I had to respond to his post, and address the whole 4.0 vs. 4.5 question, as there are partisans. DING strongly questions the arbitrary nature of my number, and that’s what I want to address: my definition of session beer, and what it means, and where we go from here. 

To begin: while I have said all along that the 4.5% cap I chose to make part of my definition was arbitrary, that's not the whole story. I could, after all, have been completely arbitrary, and capped "session beer" at 6.5%. That would have been arbitrary and indefensible. 

However, most reasonable folks have recognized that if we’re reducing this argument to an ABV number, setting a limit at 4.5% vs. 4.0% is a lot different than 6.5% vs. 4.0%. It’s hardly like DING’s absurd (deliberately so, I have to assume!) scenario of half a percent difference being tantamount to “an Englishman…calling a black beer, brewed with roasted malts and an average ABV of 8% a ‘Hefeweizen’”. That’s a bit off the mark, and reminiscent of the “beer as a gateway drug to heroin” argument we used to hear. It does fall neatly into the dogma of his contention that apparently the Beer Gods have decreed that 4.0% is THE one, true limit for session beer, and that it is, in fact, the ONLY definition of session beer: the ABV.

As an American, I disagree. DING has also said that we have no beer culture in America; again, I disagree, and the linkage of these two disagreements is the key. The beer culture of the UK (from an outsider’s perspective, admittedly) is in two parts: swilling piss-lager, and appreciating their wonderful contribution to beer, cask ale. (DING, in aside, said we can’t graft or create a beer culture, yet the UK’s cask beer culture apparently needed CAMRA to keep it alive; grafting doesn’t work, but apparently resuscitation is allowed, and that may be a good thing, since their politicians are apparently looking to kill their pub culture as well…but that’s another story.) Our beer culture, I would argue, is also in two parts: swilling piss-lager, and appreciating the entire spectrum of the world of beer.

Like America itself, we are an immigrant beer nation. We have not limited ourselves to one or two areas of beer — real ale in the UK, a spectrum of lagers in Bohemia, altbier in Düsseldorf and kölsch in Köln, wild and strong ales in Belgium — but grabbed all of it, embraced it, and taken our own spin with it. Some of those ‘spins’ have been so successful that they’ve returned to their origins and thrived there; see the stronger ales hopped with American strains in the UK, or the hoppier beers Belgian brewers are making.

Have we made mistakes? Certainly! Do we go in many directions at once? Why, to quote one of our great poets, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.” But that is the heart of this. “Session beer” is not English “session ale”, it is large, it contains multitudes. We embrace the Belgian tafelbier, the German alt and Helles, the Czech Desítka, as well as the English session ales. 

To encompass all these types of tasty, low alcohol beers — these contradictions, these multitudes — we need a term, and not, as some have said, a “style,” but a group, a class, a meta-style. It is a shorthand for this wonderful arena of lower alcohol, the “left side of the dial,” as Chris Lohring put it. It is not just about English session ales, but in America we do speak English, so the term is ready to hand: session beer.

Do we “misuse a well-established one that means something else” as DING asks? Since the earliest uses of “session ale” only appear about 30 years ago, not back in the misty ages of antediluvian English brewing, I’d say “well-established” is a stretch. But even so, I’d say this was not a misuse, but a typical American adaptation. DING doesn’t seem to mind quaffing American “IPA” or “barleywine” or “imperial stout” that comes in several full percentage points above their British counterparts (acknowledging that the origins of those beers in the ‘misty ages’ may well have been stronger also), it’s just this particular half-point of ABV that puts a beer in his bonnet.

I’d also remind him that when he says the following, he’s speaking in a foreign land:

Notch Brewing have also drawn the line at 4.5%, but have taken it further than Lew by using the terms “American Session Beer” and “American Session Ale”. This is much more to my liking, since it clearly distinguishes that the definition being used is ‘American’ in origin and therefore should not be confused with the original, authentic one. I can live with that as long as the ‘American’ aspect is emphasized to distinguish it from the real McCoy.

We’re in America. We don’t need to preface things with “American,” it’s understood: we live here. That's not chauvinism, every country is that way. They don't call it "Canadian bacon" in Canada. And again…we’ve already distinguished it from the British session ale. That’s because it was never my intent to encourage the enjoyment and appreciation and brewing (and ensuing innovation) of English session ales alone, but rather to encourage the enjoyment and appreciation and brewing (and ensuing innovation) of all types of good lower alcohol beers. To make that more easily understood, I adopted a top limit of 4.5% ABV — and said this was “for our purposes” — and have stuck to that

Now, about Session Beer Day…DING has also taken me to task for “reporting breweries and bars that are going to promote session day by using beers well OVER his limit of 4.5%. Without strict adherence to the traditional limit, things just spiral out of control, and pretty soon we get 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 etc. being included and the whole concept of session beer once again becomes meaningless and lost.” 

Well, not true. If the brewery or bar has included beers within the session limit of 4.5% and under, I’ve “reported” them; if they haven’t, I haven’t had anything to say about them. I have noted the over-the-line beers, as recently as a week ago: “New Holland Brewing jumped in with a special price for the day at their pub. And yes, I know Full Circle weiss is 4.9%; don't be a hater, just get the Doug E. Fresh at 3.0%! Thanks, guys!”

That’s it: I don’t want to just rant and rave and be all “Get off my lawn!” But I will point out when people go over the 4.5% line and call it “session beer” or “sessionable.” Done so already, you’ve seen it here (it didn't hurt, either: Mustang is celebrating Session Beer Day with Session 33, a 4.0% beer: cheers, guys!). And here. I’m not being a hater, but neither am I going to let anyone dilute this. Trust me; it’s working too well already to give up.

That’s what I’ve got for you. Get out there and drink session beer…of all kinds…as long as you keep it at 4.5% and under. And while you’re drinking, let’s do what folks do while they’re drinking session beer: let’s discuss. Cheers, see you tomorrow at the amazingly successful Session Beer Day!

"Sessionable"? Not here

I know, I know, I promised you a post about why session beer pisses off beer geeks -- and you'll get it -- but right now, another example of why beer geeks piss off The Session Beer Project. Take a look at this. Hopworks Urban Brewery in Portland, Oregon, has released a new beer for the start of Major League Soccer in town: Yellow Card Premier Ale. Allow me to quote (emphasis is all mine):

Just in time for the kickoff of the MLS season here in town, we made a sessionable English ale that will help you keep your eye on the ball and cheering for the Green!
Yellow Card is light-bodied, dry with subtle bread character featuring a crisp, mild and spicy hop bitterness. You can get it on tap and in growlers to-go at Hopworks Urban Brewery and Hopworks BikeBar.
This beer is made for the ultimate soccer fan. This one’s for you TA!
30 IBU and 5.2% ABV.

Yeah, that's 5.2% ABV. Let me reiterate: if your "session" beer is over 5%, what's the point? It's not "session beer" just because it's lower in alcohol than your double IPA. This is the flip-side of the growing acceptance of the idea that a flavorful lower-alcohol beer can be very enjoyable: "session" becomes a tag that reaches a market, rather than an idea that encompasses great beer at lower strength (for all-day drinking).

But maybe the sneakiest thing here is that the words "session beer" aren't even used. The beer is described as "sessionable." This is pure geek-speak, the snarly rebellion that "if I can drink four of them, that's sessionable!" This is sneaking into the session beer conversation, and yet...what does it mean? That a particular person will drink more than four of them? That doesn't mean much, and neither does this word.

No, really, it doesn't: you know how when you put a word followed by "definition" into Google, and fourteen competing "dictionaries" offer their definition? The only one that offers a definition for "sessionable" is the Urban Dictionary (and it's a reasonable one (!), and there's a very good definition at "session beer" too; the first one, that is). Merriam-Webster, my go-to for definitions? "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."

Therefore, I've made a decision: I'm not going to use the word "sessionable" anymore. It's become a weasel word, a dodge. I used it three times in past blog posts, and I've gone back and clarified those occasions, changing it to "session-strength." A small thing, but if this word's going to be misused, it's not going to be with my help.

Brewers? Step up. There are honest arguments over what ABV limits a session beer has -- 4.0%, my own 4.5%, BeerAdvocate's 5.0% -- but if you're over 5% and calling your beer "sessionable," sorry, you're just trying to latch onto the latest trend. And God help me, we worked too hard to make this a trend to let it be used...especially by craft brewers who should know better.

Session Cider, too

Woodchuck Cider is a huge seller. It's a big brand, and cider is growing. So it kind of tickles me to see them go to full-year production on Woodchuck Crisp, a 3.2% ABV cider they're calling America's first "Session Cider."

It is one of the driest ciders in the Woodchuck lineup.  Dry and delicate in body, it finishes with a delicious apple flavor. Crisp is 3.2% alcohol by volume (abv), yet retains taste complexity. 

They put the cider in their variety packs, and it was a hit, so they decided to go year-round. It is now available in major US markets.

And this footnote to why they were calling it "session cider" pleased me as well: we're definitely getting the message out there.

"A Session Beverage is described by longtime beer journalist Lew Bryson as being less than 4.5% ABV, flavorful enough to be interesting, yet balanced enough for multiple pints."

Session gets more good -- smart -- press

Financial news site TheStreet.com has a piece on session beers and canned crafts this week -- "Cans? Low Buzz? What's up with Craft Beer?" -- that really does get it. One of the things they get is how session beer is fighting a real headwind: low-alcohol = low flavor/quality.

As craft brewers embrace beers with less than 5% alcohol by volume and can packaging long held to ridicule after being stacked in "beeramids" and smashed against one too many frat boy foreheads, they're battling both for market share in an increasingly crowded segment and against longstanding beer stigmas passed down through generations of drinkers. 

True. But craft session beer also addresses a problem, as ratebeer's Joe Tucker (a strong ally of session beer) points out: 

"We have a 'usability' problem -- average alcohol by volume is way too high to be sipping multiple beers down at the river, cutting the lawn or at the game," says Joseph Tucker, owner and operator of RateBeer, who sees session beer as a solution to craft beer's summer quandary. "High-alcohol beer is more filling, it has more calories and it's dehydrating, and this makes the average craft beer a problem in the summertime."

Can you drink big beer in the summer? Sure: that's what air-conditioning is for. I had an Otto's Double D during Philly Beer Week in the coolly chilled Grey Lodge Pub, and it tasted great. But when I was sweating it at a packed event later in the week, doors and windows open wide to try to get a breath of air into the place? Nice cold Kenzinger, baby.



One problem I continually struggle with is the folks who want to up the definition of session to include 5% and even 5.5% beers. I don't want to get to be an ABV Nazi, but the fact is, if most world beers, if average beers home in around 5%...that makes "session beers" no big deal, and once again stuffs 3.5% beers down into the "not enough" category we've seen expanding in beer judging, and in the pale ale, IPA, and even double IPA categories, a real "go big or go home" mentality that I've pegged as the "get a bigger monkey" syndrome. Keep "session beer" defined as 4.5% and less -- or 4% or less -- and you'll get a more level playing field for these beers, and you will see more creativity and more flavor at that level. We're seeing it already.

Chris Lohring, at The Notch, doing all session beer, naturally thinks a lot about the subject, and offers this:

"If it's fine to call something 'extreme,' and the craft beer community has really embraced that term, then what's so bad about embracing a term that's the opposite of that in 'session'?" 

Indeed. What's so bad about it? What is everyone so scared of? Summer of 2011, baby: the Summer of Session? Finally? 

About that 4.5% number...

A lot of discussion around the blogosphere lately about what the top "limit" on ABV should be for a session beer. There are some militant Brits who loudly proclaim that it's 4.0, and anything above that just isn't session; there are militant Americans who say beers as high as 6% are session beers "for them." Plenty of people say I have no authority to set a limit (they're absolutely right, too).

And then there's this brilliant bit from Martyn Cornell.

Martyn doesn't consider the ABV as important as the "quaffability." When I started this thing, I agreed with that, mostly, but "quaffability" doesn't lend itself to consensus, at least not among U.S. beer blog-readers and BeerAdvocate/ratebeerians. So I used a number.

I still like a 'definition' I came up with almost 20 years ago, when Malt Advocate was still a beer magazine. I was at John Hansell's house, tasting some aged Belgians with him and a couple other friends. They were great beers: fruit lambics slowly giving up their character, some nose-opening lambics (Boon just ain't what it used to be), a vertical of Chimay Blue. But I said (something like, can't remember the exact words), "These are great, but sometimes I like a beer that doesn't stop conversation, a beer that you can all simply enjoy without constantly interrupting your friends' stories to say, 'Yeah, that's great, but do you taste those coffee notes? That's awesome!' There's a lot to be said for Sierra Nevada Pale Ale." Even then, I was groping toward this idea.

Session Beer Poll?

Yes, "Drink Craft Beer" has put up a TwtPoll asking "What is your abv% cut-off for a 'session beer?'" Choices are 4%, 4.5%, 5%, and "Over 5%."


Well, you know where I stand. And I think it's blazingly typical of American craft beer that currently "Over 5%" has a commanding lead. Go vote, folks, go vote. I'm perfectly happy to drive traffic to this poll, because it does fuel the discussion!

Mustang Brewing: gotta call you out, folks

Mustang Brewing has been out about two years now, but they've just come to my attention. They're Oklahoma-based contract brewers, and...well, here's their mission statement-ish manifesto from their website (emphasis added):

We created Mustang Brewing Company to make great, easy-drinking, session beers the people of Oklahoma can be proud to call their own. All our recipes are developed in our pilot facility in Oklahoma. We brew through partnerships with some of the country’s finest breweries. The end results are consistent, quality, craft beers that are full of flavor but light enough to enjoy. 

Sounds good, right? Our kinda place? Check the beers.

• Mustang Harvest Lager: 5.6% ABV.
• Mustang Amber Lager: 4.5% ABV.
• Mustang Washita Wheat: 5.3% ABV.
• Mustang Golden Ale: 5.3% ABV.

And the latest, Pawnee Pale Ale? Read what Mustang president Tim Schoelen said (at The Thirsty Beagle blog):

“Bringing the best of Old World East and New World West together is what makes Pawnee Pale a truly American-style pale ale. A tantalizing blend of German Perle and U.S. Pacific Northwest hops give this beer a moderate, citrus, hop quality. American, British, and caramel malts provide a rich maltiness not found in most pale ales. At 6% ABV and 42 IBU’s, Pawnee Pale is distinctly hopped, yet still carries that session beer quality you have come to expect from Mustang.”

Schoelen said Mustang has received many requests for an IPA, but struggled with how they could make one in the session beer range. Thus an American pale ale was the answer.

Actually, turns out that it isn't. When I see "6% ABV," I'm not thinking "session beer range." I'm thinking IPA, or bock, but not session. If 6% is a session beer, then 7.5% isn't strong beer? It's just...beer? The whole brewery seems to have this messed up: they want to be a session beer brewery, but four out of five beers are over 5%?

I'm not doing this to be a prick. Really. The last thing I want to see happen here is have it become all about a couple tenth-percentage points of ABV. Is your beer 4.7%, and you really want to call it a session? I'm not going to jump on you. I'm happy to encourage people who want to make session beers.

But. I see that the Session Beer Project is working, that people are talking more and more about session beers, that people are hating on session beers (sad, but at least we're talking!), that session beers are getting press...and that people are jumping on what they see as a bandwagon without really getting what it's all about. Not cool.

So I am going to say something, like I did about Full Sail's Session Lager. We're going to carve out an area here, an area where there's a real difference: lower alcohol beers with flavor. If the beer's over 5%...it's not lower alcohol. (Yeah, I know it's "lower alcohol" than a double IPA, but that's hardly the point.) I wanted to avoid this, but...I think it's time for a manifesto. Time to get militant.

Oh, and...enjoyed the hell out of the return of Milltown Mild at Victory last week -- took a growler home, and Cathy liked it, too; plenty of roasty malt in there -- and had a snappy Notch Hoppy Session at Redbones (great with the Arkansas ribs). And I got me a SBP hoody from CafePress (using that link up in the right-hand corner), and wore it all over Boston/Cambridge on Saturday: that baby is warm. Represent the Session Beer Project!

WTF, GABF?!

The new Style guidelines for the 2011 Great American Beer Festival's competition are out, and once again, there's a clear disconnect on what Session Beer is, isn't, and can be. Or at least...that's what it seems like at first. Lemme 'splain. No, that would take too long. Lemme sum up.

Here's the style guideline for "Session Beer," under Hybrid/Mixed Beer Styles.

Session Beer
Any style of beer can be made lower in strength than described in the classic style guidelines. The goal should be to reach a balance between the style's character and the lower alcohol content. Drinkability is a character in the overall balance of these beers. Beers in this category must not exceed 4.1% alcohol by weight (5.1% alcohol by volume). Original Gravity (ºPlato) 1.034-1.040 (8.5-10 ºPlato) ● Apparent Extract/Final Gravity (ºPlato) 1.004-1.010 (1-2.5 ºPlato) ●Alcohol by Weight (Volume) 3.2-4.1% (4.0-5.1%) ● Bitterness (IBU) 10-30 ● Color SRM (EBC) 2+ (4+ EBC)

So when I first saw this (thanks to Chris Lohring at The Notch, who brought it to my attention), I about went ballistic. The description sounds like a category for 'dialed-down' versions of other beers -- like a 'session bock' -- a low-alc counterweight to the "Other Strong Ale or Lager" category. Except that, unlike Other Strong (and wouldn't that make a great beer name?), Session Beer not only has an upper limit on ABV -- a way too strong 5.1%! -- it has an even more WTF-inducing lower limit on ABV: 4.0%!

Like I said, "when I first saw this." Then I poked around some more -- and it's a huge document, with even more incredibly sub-divided categories (meaning many more medals...) -- and found some other stuff. Like Ordinary Bitter (3.0-4.1% ABV), English-Style Summer Ale (3.6-5%), Scottish-style Light Ale (2.8-3.5%!), English-style Pale Mild and Dark Mild (both 3.2-4.0%), Classic Irish-style Dry Stout (3.8-5%), Berliner Weisse (2.8-3.4%), Leichtes Weizen (2.5-3.5%), Belgian-style Table Beer (0.5%-3.5%!), and German Leicht(bier) (2.5-3.6%). (I'm skipping the American Light categories on purpose, yeah.)

The upshot? There are actually more categories than ever for lower-alcohol, tasty beers (I guess we'll have to wait for next year for the Lichtenhainer and Grodziskie), which should mean that brewers will be encouraged to brew to those styles in hopes of scoring medals (the good side of category/medal multiplication). That's a good thing.

But the catch-all Session Beer category just baffles me. If it is intended to catch any beer that doesn't fall into the 'normal' low-ABV categories listed above...why have that lower limit? And if it's really about session -- and they have the courage to put low ABV ranges on those other categories -- why an upper limit of 5.1%?

Look, I don't pretend to have the last word on session beer. Plenty of Brits believe -- and tell me! -- that 4.5% is too high for session. Plenty of Americans believe it's too low for an upper limit. But 5.1%? I'm sorry, I see this as kowtowing to the west coast, where they seem to think that 5.5% is session-strength. It's not. That's too strong for session. Period.

If we're going to have a "Session Beer" category at the GABF in addition to all these traditional session/worker/table beer categories, why not borrow the language from other catch-all categories: "varies with style," and give it an upper limit of 4.5%. How's that sound?

Uncle Jack Asks A Question

What is "a session"? What's a "session beer"? How are the two related, if they are?

Jack Curtin, a fellow beer scribbler and a good friend, poses "A Question" that is getting some discussion. We love discussion about session beers! Have a look, join in.

Still More Session Beer Notice

One of the first session beer posts I made, back in February of 2007 (I was so prescient...), was a re-post of action steps for session beer suggested by Stan Hieronymus. Take a look.

Now take a look at this: "When You're Having More Than One", in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, by Tim Redmond. I'll cut to the somewhat buried lede:

I've taken quite an interest in session beers — craft brews with an ABV (alcohol by volume) level of less than 4.5 percent. You can drink a session beer at lunch and still go back to work. You can drink a couple-three after work and not be too blotto to make dinner and put the kids to bed.

Ah... I'm well-pleased. More and more folks are picking up on the 4.5% and under number, and that's good. It's kind of like the speed limit: you know where you're supposed to be, and you're going to push a few mph over, so it's good to have it a little under where people should actually be driving. If we had given in and said 5%, sooner or later we'd have 6% beers people were calling session beers...kind of like you still see people doing on BeerAdvocate and west coast beer blogs. I'll stick with the 4.5%, thanks.

Is this victory, triumph, success? No. It's another step, another notch along the way. We're getting there; time to celebrate with a few rounds...and then get back to work!

Session Beer? That's G*y, Re*arded, Pointless, Hipster, Stupid...

Came across this thread on a skiing forum that started off a post I made here. Wow. Lots of hostility, lots of not getting it, and lots of dissing of the term "session beer." I've made it no secret that I'm not in love with the term, and will happily switch to another if I hear (or think up) a better one, but these guys really hate it. And think it's new, and faux-hipster, and just marketing, and "flavor of the month." Wow, no, guys. It's not schwag lager, either.

This is why I'm pushing so hard to define session beer, and encourage people to go with that definition, and why I'm so pleased to see that definition being quoted -- and debated! -- in newspapers, magazines, and on-line forums. Not only does it advance the cause and the image, it gets people talking...which is what this whole damned thing is about. Away we go...

Good press: Session Beer getting more respect

Today's Google Alerts bring me news that interest in session beer is growing. A Web article on session beer at The Website Formerly Known as Chowhound showed up; I was interviewed for this one. Jordan Mackay (who is apparently one of the three Californians who don't like hops hops and MORE FREAKIN' HOPS RIGHT NOW) writes:

The problem is, drinking lots of beer isn’t as easy as it once was. In recent years, beer has gotten both stronger (higher in alcohol) and more flavorful. You can only drink one or two intense, hoppy beers such as IPAs before suffering from both tipsiness and palate fatigue. They also don’t really pair well with food. One antidote to this problem is Kölsch, which I wrote about recently. Another is session beer. In fact, the support for session beer is so enthusiastic that it’s at the point of transcending being just a brew and turning into a movement.

Oh, dear. A movement? That's going to piss off the big beer huggers even more. I did hear an interesting argument from Uncle Jack Curtin yesterday. "Session beer" is unnecessary, he said, explaining (I think...) that there's always some lower alcohol beer on tap. Keep in mind, Jack lives in southeastern PA, where thanks to Yards (Brawler) and Philadelphia Brewing (Kenzinger, Walt Wit) there is almost always something under 4.5% available on tap. And there's always Guinness. So Jack sez, you're crying about nothing, it's already there. And he doesn't like the term "session beer," either.

My response to his second point? Honestly, I'm not really nuts about it myself. But I don't care for the terms "gastropub" or "beer geek," either, and I'll be happy to switch to a new term if one that's better comes along...still waiting for that. His main point? I say, what's 'already there' isn't enough, even here in Philly (where we do pretty well, to be honest). I want a kaleidoscope of choices. I'm not talking about forcing it down people's throats, that's not how it works. I'm just talking about getting more people aware of it, and fostering some respect for it.

Which appears to be working, because in this piece about this weekend's World Beer Festival in Richmond, All About Beer editor Julie Johnson picks "Session beers" as one of five trends going on in beer right now (the others were more predictable: extreme/imperial, inventing a new style, soured beer, and barrel/bourbon-aging). Here's what she said:

"We've been infatuated with really strong beers, hoppy beers, beers aged in whiskey barrels, but a certain group of beer fans will say, 'What do I drink if I want more than one?' The term is a 'session beer.' That's the backbone of pub life: a good beer that you sit down with and that doesn't dominate the conversation. Craft brewers are trying something that was not in their nature: which is to dial it back, but to keep all the flavor and character that is part of the craft brew revolution.
"[Full Sail Session [Black] Lager is more full-flavored. It's a black lager that is lovely, full-flavored but not so heavy that you can't have a couple through the evening and enjoy the conversation."

Yes indeed. It's sweet to see this catching on. Makes me want to spend the afternoon on the deck drinking beer.