Cascadian Dark Ale (and IRA/IIRA)

[skyeline]

We've heard many folks, including Jamil and Gordon Strong, make negative comments about the Cascadian Dark Ale style and that it should not become a BJCP style. However, that is all, just flippant comments, no concise realistic reasons why it should not. This I do not understand, but allow me to argue the point based on what I believe to be the root of the resistence.

1) The name seems to be the bulk of the resistence, beginning with Black IPA, where the argument was that black and pale are mutually exclusive. Fine; two alternatives have been suggested since: Cascadian Dark Ale (CDA) and India Black Ale (IBA). Lets move on.

IBA came from the Brewer's Association (BA). I've neither seen nor heard any complaints about this name.

I believe that CDA originated in Portland, a reference to the Cascade mountain range that spans from southern BC and into northern California. I do not understand the opposition to CDA, but I suspect the argument is whether the style in fact originated in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). I know that the first one that I had was roughly a decade ago at the Horse Brass Pub; Skull Splitter from Rogue was made for some beer festival in Portland around 2000. It was made once after that, about 2002, and I believe that Black Brutal is the more tame version of that. So, did the style originate in the PNW? From my point of view, yes. But, I am sure that someone will come out of the woodwork and tell us that some small brewery somewhere made it before Rogue.

Yes, I am from the PNW. Yes, it would be amazing to have a style that acknowledges the PNW's contribution to brewing tradition. Yes, I believe that the style began here, for lack of any evidence otherwise. Do I care if it is called CDA, IBA, or Black IPA - no. Who the hell cares. Call it ISA - India Stout Ale. Just pick a fucking name.

The major point here is that the name certainly should not prevent it from becoming a style.

2) Recipe is a close second, inspiring a fair amount of criticism, again with no concrete reasons. Jamil clearly referred to it a "just an IPA that is black." Take a moment to read the proposed style guidelines here:
http://www.byo.com/component/resource/a ... n-dark-ale
It is obviously not merely an IPA that is black, much like an Schwarz bier is so much more than a Pilsener that is black.

Lets suppose that it were merely an IPA that was black. Is a Black American Lager not simply an American Lager that is black? Well, no, it isn't according to the guidelines - it does not take much dark specialty malts to make a big difference in a pale or straw beer. So, why would this be a valid argument against CDA?

In a recent Brew Strong episode, Jamil made another flippant remark about CDA, then soiled his pants over hoppy red ales. This seems like a a complete contradiction. What is a hoppy red ale but an IPA with more 60 - 120L crystal malts or perhaps a light chocolate addition. It is an IPA or IIPA with a small change to create a new style, IRA and IIRA.

So, if we have Black American lager and some argue that IRA and/or IIRA should become a style, why not CDA/IBA?

Now, though I have not heard or read it, one could argue that they do not like the style. I don't like the style as proposed. I think that citrus flavors and roast and coffee flavors and aromas are a complete train wreck, like those wretched "Belgian IPAs." So, I do not like CDA, IRA, IIRA, or Belgian IPAs. Is that a valid argument against them becoming a BJCP style? It is far from a valid argument to prevent CDA/IBA or the others from becoming a style. To quote McDole, "Don't let the BJCP stand in your way to good beer," but not being a style inhibits competition among those would like the style.

Finally, put up, or shut up. If you care enough about the proposed guideline that it causes you to ralley against the style, then please redirect your effort to influencing the changes that you feel are necessary, rather than just making unsupported flippant remarks,

3) Gordon Strong, affirmed by Jamil I believe, indicated that styles are adopted into the BJCP as they see commercial versions appear, entries of the style in the specialty category, and similar demands.

There are at least five PNW breweries who make CDA/IBAs, though some of them are seasonals. Hopworks Urban Brewery makes the Secession Black Ale seasonal. I don't think it is very true to the proposed guidelines, but its excellent. Rogue makes the Black Brutal as special release; see MoreBeer.com for a kit for this beer. The Turmoil Cascadian Dark Ale that won the inaugurial year for the BA's IBA category is not a seasonal and it is excellent, though difficult to get. How many commercial examples are necessary?

We are seeing many CDA/IBA entries in competitions. There have been enough that about 2 years ago a Southern California club (sorry, forget which one) augmented the BJCP to include a specific category for it. How many entries in how many competitions are necessary?

If I am not mistaken, this will be the second year for the BA's IBA category. For that matter, they have had an hoppy red ale category since 2008. Why is the BJCP so reluctant to adopt CDA/IBA and IRA & IIRA?

Limiting the number of category and thereby the size and difficulty of arranging and judging competitions is not a valid reason to exclude these styles. As far as I know, no competition is required to accept all categories - and, in fact, some don't.

It is time that the BJCP added CDA/IBA, IRA, and IIRA so that those who enjoy those styles may compete with them. Or, perhaps we should abandon the BJCP and just use the BA's guidelines. Why do we need two sets of guidelines?

Cheers

[peas_and_corn]

Well said. I'm a fan of the style, and I personally hope that it will be recognised eventually. Jamil having to come up with a recipe for the new edition of Brewing Classic styles would be interesting

[anday6]

Greg Koch from Stone has an opinion on this topic in the craft beer world. I know they don't always align with the homebrew world (bjcp) in names/styles but just an argument for one side.

http://www.craftbeer.com/pages/stories/craft-beer-muses/show?title=in-defense-of-language-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-black-ipa

[CRBrewHound]

Not that you will agree with me but, I do not see a need for the addition of this style. The guidelines are already too large in respect to beer styles. There is already too large an overlap of styles where you could releastically enter the same beer in two and win both.

Next arguement, if you add a style for everything that is brewed then the guidelines are very quickly going to become too unmanageable. For example, there are far more places brewing bourbon barrel stouts then the CIPA, IBA, or what ever name you want to call it, so I would say that a Bourbon oak stout should become a style before this.

If every time someone does a change up on a traditional style and it becomes trendy for awhile requires addition to the BJCP, you are going to end up with 1000 styles with half of them over lapping severly.

Now, I am not going to get in a pissing contest on this, so, take this as my opinion on the subject, and judge it against what it is, My opinion.

[PWeis909]

Homebrewers play a role in developing style guidelines. If enough people enter American Black Ale (or whatever) as a category 23 beer, I think the BJCP will take notice and create a separate style. Same goes for Belgian IPA (except that category 16e is more appropriate). If people brew lots of good beers that are comparable but not covered by the guidelines, they will take notice. It may be that new styles still need time to mature before they can be well-defined for competition purposes.

[mediumsk]

I have been living in Portland the last 7 years and have been heavily interested in it's craft beer scene for about 5 years.

a few FACTS:

Black IPA/ CDA did not originate in Portland.

These types of beers were NEVER, I repeat NEEEEEEEVVVERRR brewed in Portland until Abrahm armstrong started pushing the whole CDA thing.

One of CDA's biggest proponents is Matt vanwyk from oakshire brewing in Eugene. He has lived here about 2 years. He shouldn't even be talking.

CDA/black IPA is yummy.

The best version ( and what EVERYONE is striving to create) is Barley Brown's CDA.

If you can't get Barley Brown's just try Stone's Sublimely Self Righteous, it's pretty much an exact clone.

The versions that succeed at imitating B.B.'s CDA are basically just hoppy porters.

this whole thing is dumb.

[tonyc318]

You say its a fact that it did not come from Portland, that might be true, but can you tell us where it came from? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm seriously asking. I like the CDA name personally, but I also live in said Cascadia. Anyone had Bridgeport's Dark Rain? its tasty! got me into this beer. ingredients on the way for next brew day!

[peas_and_corn]

Not that you will agree with me but, I do not see a need for the addition of this style. The guidelines are already too large in respect to beer styles. There is already too large an overlap of styles where you could releastically enter the same beer in two and win both.

Next arguement, if you add a style for everything that is brewed then the guidelines are very quickly going to become too unmanageable. For example, there are far more places brewing bourbon barrel stouts then the CIPA, IBA, or what ever name you want to call it, so I would say that a Bourbon oak stout should become a style before this.

If every time someone does a change up on a traditional style and it becomes trendy for awhile requires addition to the BJCP, you are going to end up with 1000 styles with half of them over lapping severly.

Now, I am not going to get in a pissing contest on this, so, take this as my opinion on the subject, and judge it against what it is, My opinion.

There is a style section for that, barrel aged beers.