History, Sugar and Sex: Why Mixed Drinks Were Terrible for 30 Years
talkingpointsmemo.com
talkingpointsmemo.com
A sizable fraction of the liquor on the US West Coast comes from Frank-Lin Distillers Products.[1] They used to be near the San Jose railyards, but now they're in Fairfield, with better rail access. They need rail access because the ethanol comes in by the trainload, in tank cars.[2] One of their major suppliers is MGP Ingredients in Illinois. They used to be called Midwest Grain Products, and before that, Midwest Solvents. MGP provides pure ethanol to both the beverage and gasoline industries.
Frank-Lin has their own water deionization and filtering plant on-site, to take all the minerals out of tap water and have just pure water. They do some additional processing on the ethanol to remove trace impurities. Then they mix ethanol, water, and flavoring to produce beverages. They have about a thousand different products - vodkas, gins, brandies, bourbons, rums, and wines, but only about a hundred different recipes.
Each brand has its own bottle design and label. The Ball bottle-making factory is conveniently next door. Frank-Lin has an advanced bottling line that can automatically change from one bottle to another without a shutdown.
Frank-Lin also does "contract bottling" - they will make your brand for you. They used to make Skyy Vodka. Skyy was a virtual company - everything was outsourced, like a app startup. Skyy was bought by a major distiller a few years ago, which pulled production in-house.
Once you get past the marketing, that's the reality.
[1] http://www.frank-lin.com/ [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@38.278159,-121.973672,3a,75y,11...
It's an open secret in the wine industry, though, that a large quantity of grapes for California wine -- even of Napa Valley product (though I'm not sure how strict the rules are for appellations) are sourced from elsewhere in the state, much of it from near Fresno and Clovis. There simply isn't enough acreage within Napa Valley to supply production.
How much individualized production Frank-Lin does would be quite interesting to establish.
This is the stuff you'll get at a corner bar when you say "I don't care." When they ask what kind of vodka you want.
http://www.robsrum.com/RumBasics.html
I think the grandparent isn't right.
And about three seconds' thought would tell you: "GeorgeBeech, no idiot running a 'premium' liquor brand would allow their product to be featured on a bulk purveyor of flavored methanol products manufacturer website."
Brand appearances are tightly controlled. The message is as much about what you want to be known as what you want to be concealed.
It's all ethanol, water, and flavoring. Deal with it.
Coca-Cola's "Dasani" is tap water that's been run through a deionizing plant and had some minerals added.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060318162306/http://www.frank-...
Here's a list of Frank-Lin products: http://sourmashed.com/american-whiskey-database/frank-lin-di...
http://sourmashed.com/american-whiskey-database/frank-lin-di...
A R Morrow Brandy, Lejon Brandy, Potter’s Finest Brandy, Montanac Brandy, Maraska Brandy, Busnel Calvados, Menorval Calvados, 1st Cru Collection Cognac, Francious Voyer Napoleon Cognac, Maison Prunier Cognac, Marthe Sepia Cognac, Menuet Cognac, Aubade & Cie. Cognac, Francois De Lyon Cognac, Jules Domet Cognac, Maison Prunier Cognac, Café Del Amor, Curacao Liqueur, Destinee Liqueur, Gran Citron, Grand Marquette, Holly Toddy, Jules Domet Orange Liqueur, Kona Gold Coffee Liqueur, Maraska Cherry & Pear Liqueurs, Potter’s, Potter’s Long Island Iced Tea, Potter’s Sour Splash, Vice Rei – Portugal Passion Fruit, Duggan’s Irish Cream, Barrett’s London Dry Gin, Bellringer (England) Gin, Cossack Gin, Martini London Dry Gin, Potter’s London Dry Gin, Classik Grappa, Jules Domet Grand Orange, Agwa, Arak Razzouk – Anise Liqueur, Par-D-Schatz, Ramazotti, Arak Razzouk, Don Antonio Aguilar, Diamond Head Rum, Havana Bay Rum, Moraga Cay Rum, Potter’s Specialty Rums, Potter’s West Indies Rum, Prichard’s Rum, Tanduay Rum, Glenalmond Scotch, Glen Ranoch Scotch, Muirheads Speyside Scotch, Angus Dundee Scotch, Tambowie Scotch, Blackburn’s Scotch, Duggan’s Dew Scotch, Lloyd & Haig Scotch, Potter’s Scotch, Maraska Kosher, Subovorska, Defrost Schnapps, El Tirador Tequila, Arette 100% agave Tequila, Baja Tequila, Baja Tequila Liqueur, Don Diego Santa Tequila, Potter’s Tequila, Puente Grande Tequila, Puerto Vallarta Tequila, Quito Tequila, Señor Rio Tequila, Sol De Mexico Tequila, Baronoff Vodka, Beyond Vodka, Charodei-Russia Vodka, Cossack Vodka, Crown Czar Vodka, Crown Superior Vodka, Ed Hardy-France Vodka, Haamonii-Schochu Vodka, Maggy-Russsia Vodka, Monnema Vodka, Monopolowa Vodka, Monopolowa-Austria Vodka, Potter’s Vodka, Purity-Sweden Vodka, Royal Czar Vodka, Spirit of Santa-Finland Vodka, Tamiroff Vodka, Vampyre-Transylvania Vodka, White Wolf Vodka, Bourbon Age – Ky Bourbon, Bourbon Club Bourbon, Buck Bourbon Bourbon, Clyde Mays Conecuh Ridge Whisky Bourbon, Joshua Brook Bourbon, Potter’s Bourbon, Wathen’s Bourbon, Barret’s Blended Whiskey, Glenwood Blended Whiskey, Potter’s Blended Whiskey, 8 Seconds Canadian Whisky, C.E.O. Canadian Whisky, Campbell & Cooper Canadian Whisky, Canadian Crown Canadian Whisky, Potter’s Crown Canadian Whisky.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_whisky#Regulations and NAFTA Chapter 3, Annex 313: Distinctive Products)
The thing to remember is, there's plenty of completely crappy Scotch and, presumably, Cognac. It's not mixed from pure ethanol - the countries who control the use of the appellations have laws about how the stuff can be made - but every drink industry has its bottom of the barrel stuff that it needs to get rid of somehow...
In any case, the parent claims that Frank-Lin Distillers just uses pure ethanol to produce all of it's products. Given things such as bourbon permit the addition of "neutral grain spirits" those products make sense. I was curious about the Canadian whiskey case since it is explicitly one of the few protected spirits in law and appears to at least require production and aging in Canada.
That's an interesting thought. I'm aware of France fighting misuse of its wine appellations overseas but I don't know about the rest. They're pretty aggressive, though.
> In any case, the parent claims that Frank-Lin Distillers just uses pure ethanol to produce all of it's products. Given things such as bourbon permit the addition of "neutral grain spirits" those products make sense.
The "bourbon" label is protected in the United States: you need to use certain ingredients to make bourbon, or rye, or tennessee whiskey, or whatever. With bourbon, for example, an ethanol distilled all the way up to azeotrope wouldn't be legal in the United States. The limit you can use is 160 proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_whiskey#Legal_requireme...
In the parent's defense, "flavored ethanol" isn't a bad way of describing a lot of vodkas. Some of the better vodkas come out of industrial continuous distillation. The parent is just overstating his case, and in a small way, missing the point. A lot of that cheap stuff would be BETTER if it were pure ethanol and an additive...
Here's how it works with whiskey: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/stickaforkinit/2014/07/mgp_whiskey...
The central problem, though, is that whiskey is an unpredictable business, compounded by the necessity of aging the product. Rye lurked in the shadows for a long time, then suddenly became trendy. The result: crazy price jumps, proof reductions (I'm looking at you, Wild Turkey), and everybody and his brother jumping on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, that results in a proliferation of me-too products, and separating what's real from what's BS can be a chore.
I'm still wishing I had gone with my gut feeling and bought a case or two of Rittenhouse Bonded rye back when it was cheap.
The part that wasn't particularly surprising was that mixed drinks and cocktails, along with associated terms ("cocktail hour", "cocktail party") largely date to U.S. Prohibition, when bootleg (and low-quality) hard liquor had to be mixed with other ingredients to become drinkable: http://goo.gl/EBXM87
What was more surprising was that the vast majority of branded alcohols dated to no earlier than the 1950s. Baccardi Rum is a notable exception showing up in the 1920s (http://goo.gl/it9vOc)
Schmirnoff: 1950, on the nose: http://goo.gl/j0yle3 http://goo.gl/YxXJ9i
Remy Martin, Beefeater, Gordon's, and Bombay Gin: 1950s: http://goo.gl/qX6JEY
That "traditional old Number 7" Jack Daniels? 1970s: http://goo.gl/JWVLG6
And an "Irish pub" is really a 1990s phenomenon: http://goo.gl/vLwvTn
And if you look at many of today's "trendy" brands, most are creations of the 1980s, 1990s, or later: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120306152857A...
"Mixology" itself -- also largely a creation of the past 20 years: http://goo.gl/1hVsEU
And whiskey, the American version at least, was largely created to allow movement of an otherwise unusable product -- frontier grain -- to the population centres of the East Coast.
Your "sophisticated drinks" are an ad-man's creation.
I was first introduced to the concept of alcohol branding by way of the wine industry (at one point Pepsi, by way of Diageo, owned a number of Napa Valley properties). The "fake rustic / family / small one-off" vibe of a great many wineries, breweries, distilleries, bars, etc., is little but a show.
Though yes, there are also genuine family-owned outfits. They just don't have hundred-million-dollar advertising budgets. Well, except for the Gallos.
On Diageo's holdings: "Diageo's brands include Smirnoff (the world's best-selling vodka),[7] Johnnie Walker (the world's best-selling blended Scotch whisky),[8] Baileys (the world's best-selling liqueur),[9] and Guinness (the world's best-selling stout).[10][11] It also owns 34% of Moët Hennessy, which owns brands including Moët & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot and Hennessy.[12][13] It sells its products in over 180 countries and has offices in around 80 countries."
They own everything from Louis Vuitton to Dom Pérignon to Veuve to Fendi and beyond.
The company has (very wisely) somewhat cornered the market on goods for the aspirationally wealthy. And the people who aspire to be apirationally wealthy. I've got a bottle of JW Blue and Veuve right now.
You know you're kind of being played when you buy it, but they provide a nice experience and a nice looking product, in addition to a decent to good product.
The routes were overland (rivers have a hard time crossing mountains), this was pre-railroad (let alone highway). There was significant grain production, that couldn't be moved feasibly by other means.
I was specifically addressing the case within the U.S., not the rest of the world, though yes, you're generally correct. Fermenting (and sometimes distilling) grains, fruit, potatoes, etc., is a way of storing surplus production in a form that's resistant to rot or other decay.
I pointed out US whiskey because the circumstances of its existence were not manipulated by marketers, but was the "natural" consequence of the limitations of the time. Further, that fits in with whiskey throughout the Western world, so the US is not unusual.
That's not totally true - Jerry Thomas published How to Mix Drinks or The Bon-Vivant’s Companion in 1862. Punch (sort of the precursor to cocktails) has been around even longer.
"Cock-tail is a stimulating liquor, composed of spirits of any kind, sugar, water, and bitters—it is vulgarly called bittered sling, and is supposed to be an excellent electioneering potion, in as much as it renders the heart stout and bold, at the same time that it fuddles the head. It is said, also to be of great use to a democratic candidate: because a person, having swallowed a glass of it, is ready to swallow any thing else"
Also, the Old Fashioned cocktail was created in the later 1800s to bring back the cocktails from the earlier 1800s instead of the garish concoctions that the contemporary bars were mixing. Ironic that until the craft cocktail revolution that modern Old Fashioneds included the "garbage" that the original was eschewing
Folks who are really interested ought to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399532870/
I'm very glad that Old Tom Gin is finally starting to become available again.
You'll find that as with the others I've cited, it shows a rapid and dramatic growth during Prohibition, to levels not achieved previously, and which have been maintained since.
Subsequent peaks in 1953, 1985, and 2002.
I'm aware that "appearance in print" is only a proxy for cultural prevalence. But it's a good one.
I'm aware of some European uses (mostly liqueurs) that may date to earlier. Premium, or even non-premium, alcohol consumption habits really aren't a personal specialty.
That is an extraordinary conclusion which requires a bit more evidence than you're putting forward.
Another interpretation of the data is that the entire idea of a bar, pub, or corner bar was Irish by default until the 90's, when it became necessary to distinguish between different types of bars.
As an older fellow, my memory from well before the 90's is that what we think of now as an "Irish Pub" would have just been called "a bar" back in the day.
Ireland, as much of the world knows it, was invented
in 1991. That year, the Irish Pub Company formed with
a mission to populate the world with authentic Irish barLike McSorley's Old Ale House in NYC, for instance, which has been operating at the same location since at least the 1860s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McSorley%27s_Old_Ale_House). Most Northern cities of any size will have had similar establishments set up at roughly the same time, though it's rare to find one that's been in continuous operation for so long.
I would venture to guess that when people think of an "Irish pub," nearly all of what they're thinking of comes out of the Irish-American pub tradition. The program described in the article just takes all that stuff and wraps it into an "official Irish" package that's easy to franchise.
My God! Ireland's annexed Kazakhstan and the Canary Islands?!!!!
From TFA:
In the last 15 years, Dublin-based IPCo and its competitors have fabricated and installed more than 1,800 watering holes in more than 50 countries. Guinness threw its weight (and that of its global parent Diageo) behind the movement, and an industry was built around the reproduction of "Irishness" on every continent—and even in Ireland itself. IPCo has built 40 ersatz pubs on the Emerald Isle, opening them beside the long-standing establishments on which they were based.
As a commercial chain operation exporting an ersatz experience, the early 90s sounds right. But there have been individual establishments with an Irish clientele and atmosphere in most places where a high density of Irish emigrants ended up. See for example Doyle's Cafe in Boston.
["irish pub" site:groups.google.com] and then using more tools to select a custom date range of anything before 1995 means you get zero hits, but if you change the date to anything before 1998 you start to get a few hits, but these seem to be "pubs where Irish people drink" rather than "Irish theme pubs".
This was surprising to me because I have false memories of "Irish Pubs" (the packaged experience, not pubs with Irish customers) from early 1990.
Edit: wait - I should have probably tried this with "Irish bar"?
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Irish+Pub%2C+I...
Actually, its heyday was 1794 - 1886:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Irish+Pub%2CIr...
(And yeah, there's a reason I used URL shorteners earlier.)
Americans call small neighborhood type buildings where people gather to drink alcohol "bars" not "pubs" as a general rule.
Your methodology here is deeply suspect.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cafe%2Ccaffe%2...
Though the pre-1820 popularity of "cafe" is an interesting story itself I'll leave to the enterprising reader:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cafe&year_star...
Even some highschool people who had no Irish heritage decided they wanted to be "Irish". One hung the Irish flag in his room, smoked pipe tobacco, and wore a green kilt to parties.
It was Irish-mania.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=St.+Patricks+D...
But you can bet your patootie it shows you when they emerged into common and popular usage. And that's the point I'm making here.
Yes, some of those brands "existed" going back through history to dates earlier than U.S. Prohibition. I explored that aspect in an earlier question to reddit's /r/AskHistorians, and from what I could glean from that, while the names existed they were largely as small and local establishments. Not the national conglomerates we've got today.
Most large alcohol brands underwent a revolution in the post-WWII era. Many far more recently than that.
Otherwise you're simply hand-waving (along with numerous others here).
I have substantiated the general conclusions with a number of other avenues of research. I suspect they're sound.
Mass-merchandising, mass-media, a consumer economy, TV and radio advertising, and expendable income were all things, however.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=globalization&...
If you are just measuring how frequently the word appears in popular usage, I don't see how that really has any bearing on the actual phenomenon. I don't think you are going to dispute that gravity existed and had a major impact prior to 1616 are you?
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22gravity%22&...
(Side note, if you put your search term in quotes it generates totally different results than if it's alone, in any case, I'm pretty sure that gravity existed before it started to take off in the media in the 1650s.)
It is probably true that fussier drinks are more recent, but there are probably plenty of specialty drinks that have simply been forgotten.
If you are researching names you know, you will probably come up with a newer pedigree.
Also it is unfair to be lumping cocktails together with "branded alcohol", though it is true the brands have had a hand in pushing cocktails, they didn't invent the idea.
[edit: 1862 bartender's guide to mixed drinks] https://books.google.com/books?id=QDUEAAAAYAAJ&dq=Bar-Tender...
Again: the historical record, indicated by prevalence in the Ngram viewer, suggests a fairly recent emergence in the general public discussion of both cocktails and branded liquor.
I can't cite, but I've read that before Prohibition, you pretty much went to a bar and ordered "whiskey", "rum" or whatever booze by style, but not by brand name. There wasn't much in the way of differentiation in the market. But during Prohibition, drinking random booze had a real risk of getting you sick, blinded or dead.
This was because 1) A lot of alcohol was still being produced for industrial uses. 2) To enforce Prohibition, that industrial alcohol was treated with additives to make it disgusting and poisonous to drink. 3) To fill the still-existing market for booze, some people sold alcohol that was made to be industrial but later had the additives (mostly) extracted.
During that time, having a trusted source of quality booze (booze that won't kill you) was suddenly very valuable. Good sources started the branding process to capitalize on that new market demand. Those who branded well grew. And, the rest is history.
Before prohibition, a majority of saloons were 'tied-houses', meaning they bought from a single brewery. (Part of this was due to the massive industrialization of brewing by a few highly successful companies) Fierce competition between local saloons ensued, and larger brewers would fight marketing and price wars against local competitors, driving them out of the market.
Their marketing and sales tactics also contributed to the abundance of 'social ills' that were part of the argument for prohibition in the first place. The Anti-Saloon League was actually the most powerful lobby for prohibition, beating out both the Women's Christian Temperance Union and Prohibition Party combined.
To combat the problems brought by saloon monopoloy, new legislation after prohibition required brewers to be separated from the retail operation by the requirement of wholesalers for distribution. Once brewers no longer had a monopoly on a given retailer, all earlier concepts of branding and marketing changed. No longer would you go to a 'Pabst saloon' (which was the only viable saloon in town), but instead just any local saloon, tavern or bar, and select one of the local brews.
FWIW, http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/snyder.php says there wasn't a national trademark protection before 1905. That would have given only 15 years for a national brand to assert itself before prohibition.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/18/what-every-president-drank/ says that Wilson's campaign song "Wilson's. That's all" came from a then popular whiskey brand. That would have been before prohibition. The brand was: Wilson "That's All" Old Label Blended Whiskey. There's a picture of a bottle at https://www.pinterest.com/engraver26/beer-booze-bottles-labe... , but that's a post-prohibition bottle.
There are some pre-prohibition brands at https://www.sweeney-emporium.com/cgi-bin/go.pl?session=a2bjr... .
Apparently there were plenty of brands pre-prohibition. So I think what you're seeing is that the most popular drinks now don't have a long history, not that brands are a result of prohibition.
That's a possibility. And prohibition certainly put a lot of established liquor companies out of business. Though that doesn't address the question of why the sudden rise to prominence of brands from 1950 onwards -- 17 years after repeal.
> As soon as packaged beer became popular in the mid-1930s, cans competed with refillable glass bottles for the market. The figure and table show how the rise of metal cans and a fluctuating but significant demand for one-way bottles concurred with the decline of refillable bottles. One-way containers helped national beer companies conquer the U.S. market, and their conquest further diminished the use of refillable glass bottles.
Marketing national brands also became easier with the rise of popularity of radio and TV in the 1950s. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-budweiser-became-the-king... comments:
> Budweiser had its glory days in the 1950s when Anheuser-Busch helped strengthen its national brand by sponsoring shows featuring Jackie Gleason, Milton Berle, and Frank Sinatra. It also promoted its beer by sponsoring sporting events and branding stadiums. By the 1980s, Budweiser was synonymous with American culture.
Here's an essay about the decline of regional breweries in Cincinnati - http://www.wcpo.com/entertainment/local-a-e/cincinnatis-rise... . It shows that regional brands were popular pre-Prohibition, and my summary of it is that decreasing marketing and transport costs gave more weight to the economy of scale for the national brands.
http://tapsmagazine.com/in-this-issue/the-rise-of-national-b... might be useful, but non-subscribers like me only see "The 1950s witnessed the emergence of national brands, as the nation’s biggest brewers aggressively promoted their flagship beers from coast to coast."
In any case, it's instructive to look at old menus and wine lists to get a feel for what was actually on offer way back when. For the most part, cocktails as we know them don't show up until the 1940s or so. Though it's worth noting there aren't a lot of speakeasy menus around.
On the other hand, generic types of liquor like "old tom gin" or "rye" date back well into the 19th century.
Wine brands certainly date back even further, and interestingly it's the champagnes that have changed very little in the top brands for centuries. Some beer brands, particularly Guinness and Bass have been popular on American menus for a long, long time.
Browse the New York Public Library's historic menu collection here- http://menus.nypl.org/
It's fascinating history.
James Burke in his 1979 series Connections dates modern consumer goods to Wedgwood China in the 18th century.
The first real "personal appliances" -- consumer mechanical products -- were the bicycle and sewing machine, both emerging in the 1880s.
Edward Bernays and principles of modern PR and advertising would make another excellent topic of exploration.
All of which goes over and elucidates a tad more than snark.
But the NYPL link is appreciated.
Haven't found it yet, but did find this- a discussion of the saloons of the city, which mentions the Irish bar in town a few times, as well as Tennent's Ale, which was a growing global brand at the time.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/285y5g/what_e...
In any case, I spend a fair amount of time browsing 19th century American magazines and newspapers (for fun, I suppose), and you can see the early national brands growing over the decades. The railroads were what made it all possible, they really did transform daily life in substantial ways. Certainly in places that were directly connected, but also even in more remote towns. Goods moved much more quickly, and growth hacking of all sorts was rewarded quite handsomely.
EDIT- here's the thread I was looking for, it was specifically the Tabasco brand we know today. There's also a subthread on cocktails of the era! http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29tus4/compar...
But history is unforgiving, and the laugh will be on us. In a few years the term "mixologist" and the whole discourse concerning bitters, muddling, and artisanal gin is going to be ripe for the comedic shredder. I look forward to it.
I can go to any number of bars in Sydney where a 'mixologist' can't make a simple Belvedere Vodka, a bit dirty (not slutty). Go to a place that has a bartender, and at least you've got a shot at something half decent.
It is not all about taste. Marking is 50% of it. For example Pabst Blue Ribbon is an amazing story. It went from cheap crap beer people cooked with to hipster signature within 5 years or so.
It is the same crap but marketing turned it into cool "awesome" drink that every tight-jean, flippy-hair, messenger-bag carrying self-respecting hipster would want. Or was 3 years ago and now they are drinking something else...
Anyway, a lot of it was due to very clever marketing, product placement and sponsorship.
Go into any neighborhood liquor store, and in addtion to the Big Three and the other inexpensive pale lagers and pilsners, you'll also see something from one of the major craft breweries (Samuel Adams, New Belgum, et. al), -- a couple amber ales, and at least one pale ale or wheat ale. Go into a larger liquor store, and in addition to the above, you're likely to find beers from other craft breweries local to your region, all of them offering various ales and lagers ranging from very pale and light to very dark and heavy, and plenty of points in between.
There's good stuff to be had. You just have to be willing to consider beer to be more than cheap pale lager, and to go looking for it.
The craft brew scene has exploded only in the last couple of decades and most microbrewers are comparatively new to the craft. Hopefully a broader variety of styles will become better represented as brewers gain experience and try to differentiate themselves from the overly hopped masses.
At present, the lion's share of my favorite North American microbrews are from Quebec. I don't know why, but the brewers of that province are hitting it out of the park right now.
IPAs are relatively easy to get right, but subtler styles like pilsner require more precision in the brewing process.
Now I'm seeing far more hoppy stuff around, but I'm also not goign to bars in Seattle anymore.
Beer Advocate lists 618 Doppelbocks: http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/35/ and, taking a quick look down the list, it appears that at least half of them seem to be made in the US.
Hah, well finally I am validated. I was an anti-IPA snob when IPAs became all the rage. People would tell me how great this beer is, soooo bitter. Which to me is like drinking 80 proof vodka and claiming to taste the undertones of grains in it.
It sort of became like a badge of beer connoisseurship -- the more bitter you liked them the more you knew about beer.
Anyway, my favourite are wheat ales but also like stouts.
Some of us like sweetness, and there's no reason a sweet cocktail should be inherently less skill-based than a sour one (if you're worried about the nutritional balance of your cocktail, the alcohol will kill you first). A clever name doesn't have to mean a bad drink. The disappearance of federal regulation was interesting, but it doesn't seem like it tells the whole story - it's not like those federal whiskey inspectors have been reintroduced (have they?).
Some of us like sweetness, and there's no reason a sweet cocktail should be inherently less skill-based than a sour one.
So, again, you're missing the point: strong mixers (sweet or sour!) cover up bad ingredients and also cover up bartenders being incompetent. It's not a choice between sweet, sour, and whatever else in a good mixed drink; it's a bartender knowing how the flavors fit together in the drink, and knowing how the flavors vary across brands and years of theoretically the same ingredient. For example, there are several different manufacturers and brands of gin, and what works well in a gin and tonic may fail to test nearly as good in a proper martini.
It's more economical and requires vastly less skill to dump vodka or well tequila into a sour-mix and thrown in some cubes and give to a patron, than it is to pick the right tequila off a bar, pair with the right liquors, and add just a slight amount of mixer for flavor, and then serve.
In general when you see that sort of talk decrying the "rookies" and "amateurs" they're talking about drinks designed to cover up the booze and classic booze-y flavors, and those tend to be sweet & sour mixers. And no, there's nothing wrong with those drinks, drink what you want.
"Bourbon or scotch? You may be surprised by who owns your favorite whiskey" Raghu Manavalan, Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 15:53
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/numbers/bourbon-o...
I can't vouch for accuracy, but it's an entertaining read.
He truly makes the bar tender.
It may not be the sort of thing your average SF tech worker can relate to, but for many Americans the choice between a $10-$20 mixed drink and a $2 double shot of a well liquor (with more ethanol than the mixed drink) is no choice at all.
For instance, a Dark Ages bar you'll be paying $15+ for a bird bathed style "martini" which is simply chilled vodka (martinis are not vodka, and they should have a measurable amount of vermouth) or you're paying the same for a proper 3-4 oz sized craft cocktail.
This article wasn't talking about cocktails vs slugging shots of straight liquor, rather it was talking about how wretched the state of mixed drinks themselves became.
Is this the kind of thing I'm missing out on by living outside a dinky little town out in the country? $20 for a mixed drink is insane. Who buys this crap?