TOPIC:

I'm just about finished a book called Man Walks into a Pub by Pete Brown. It's a history of beer and pubs in the UK and is quite interesting. The writer is quite opinionated and while I wouldn't agree with everything he says (he talks quite alot about what a good beer Stella is, for example), he also makes some very valid points and interesting arguments.

The writer deals alot with the rise of keg ale in the UK and then speaks about the great work that CAMRA have done in saving "real ale". He does point out however, that cask ale has only a 10% market share of all the beer drank in the UK. He says that CAMRA should be doing more to promote cask ale to the ordinary members of the public rather than describing beers in such a way that it will only appeal to "hobbiests". If beers are described in ways similiar to wine non beer enthusiasts will feel isolated and will continue drinking whatever piss comes out of a can or keg. I think he may be right.

On the other hand, the writer comes from an advertising background and doesn't accept CAMRA's complaint that it's the forces or marketing which make people drink poor lager and shun real ale. He says people will only go for a product if it's good enough. I disagree with him here.

Still, I think he has a strong argument. Most of my mates prefer the taste of good beer over the bland stuff but continue ordering crap lager anyway. Maybe if beer coniscours* talked in a less pretentious way, real beer could become the "everyman" drink it rightfuly should be.

What do you think?


*although now that I think of it, who's responsibility should promoting beer be.

I absolutely agree, from what I read on the web, that CAMRA have hobbified cask ale, but that seems to be enough to allow small and medium-sized breweries to survive independently, which is basically the point of the exercise.

Furthermore, people are at least aware of real ale, even if they think it's for beardy saddos. Compare that to the Irish situation where so many drinkers have beer-blinkers on all the time, especially in the pub.

Honestly, I don't think we do talk pretentiously when dealing with beer drinkers of limited horizons. My attitude is usually: here try this before you order your usual, and if you don't like it that's fine. I failed in my late-1990s campaign to get all my friends to drink in the Porterhouse regularly, so I know there's just no convincing some (most) people.

Who's job should it be to promote quality beer? Us with our wallets, first. The small brewers with their distribution and marketing, second. and with luck the big brewers, scared into proper diversity, third.

I really don't understand why anyone would prefer good beer but drink crap, unless they're very poor or in desperate need of getting hammered. Have you discussed this over beers with them, Wobbler?

I tend to do the same as you BN, get them to try something new before their regular. I have to say though that most of my friends are open to new beers, and are not afraid to try something unusual - we've been porterhouse heads for ages and now I've converted them to B&C. I introduced them all to Hooker a couple weekends ago by making sure to get there first, be drinking it, and when they arrive let them taste mine - they all then had a full pint followed by many more
maybe my mates are just more open-minded than the average joe? I don't know.

My main problem with the Porterhouse is that I don't think it's an especially nice pub. Alot of the time, I'd rather be drinking a Guinness in the Long Hall, The Lord Edward or somewhere like that than the Porterhouse. It's not comfortable, it's always full of morons, it can be very difficult to get a seat, they play some truly dire live music, some of the staff seem openly hostile..... But they stock amazing beer (often served ice cold and in the wrong glass but at least it is good beer) so I drink there quite often. The Bull and Castle is different. Upstairs is a nice room. The staff are friendly and seem genuinly enthusiastic about beer and their selection is really good. Still, it's not the sort of pub I'd usually go in for. When we get really good beers in really good pubs, we'll have a beer scene we can be proud of. You all may baulk at this but in my opinion, drinking good beer is only one small part of a good night out (I'll qua\lify that by saying that I usually go in for stronger beers and sticking to the harder stuff isn't an option if I want to remain social)

My mates would usually acknowledge that the beers I'd usually be drinking is nicer than the stuff they're used to but don't consider drinking nice beer as being too important.

My homebrew has done a lot to convert my friends.

One of them was of the “I don't like Ale” persuasion so I lied to him. It's a lager, not a blonde Ale, it's a Vienna lager, not a brown ale. Then, after he declared his liking for a few of them, I announced that I had never brewed a lager in my life. They were all ales.

Had him in the Porterhouse North drinking TSB last week. He thought all ale was like Smithwicks before, so I can understand how he decided that he didn't like ale.

"Wobbler":1rg5f00y wrote: The Bull and Castle is different. Upstairs is a nice room. The staff are friendly and seem genuinly enthusiastic about beer and their selection is really good. [/quote:1rg5f00y]
Incidentally, I'm thinking of organizing a drinks reception upstairs in the B&C for my wedding.