Friday, May 11, 2007

Daniel Davies likes Budweiser. So does Matt Yglesias.

I've never really cared for Bud, but perhaps it may be time for a critical reapprasal of the King of Beers.

Davies provides an extensive defense of Budweiser's authenticity and points out that Budweiser does indeed have a different chemicial composition than urine. And both take their swings at microbrews. But one topic remains unaddressed - what Budweiser actually tastes like, and I don't meant the crude metaphors about piss.

It had been a while since I had drank Budweiser, so I stopped on the way home from work to pick up a 6-pack (cans) of it to refresh my memory and see if Bud has been unjustly maligned.

Observations and underinformed opinions:

-Works well with cans. Most beers I'd rather drink out of a bottle, including many in the same price range as Bud (ex Labatts, the various Miller beers), but Bud tastes better out of a can.

-Finely filtered. This isn't unique to Bud or either good or bad in and of itself; it affects the mouth-feel, contributing to the crispness of the beer.

-Mildly hopped, but you knew that.

-Tastes somewhat bland, although it's crisp when cold, but also kind of sweet, which I don't like, and the sweetness persists in the aftertaste. I though it would taste better if it were more acidic, so I added a bit of lemon juice to it, which improved the flavor by offsetting the sweetness. Groundless speculation: This may be related to why the aluminum can works well, since aluminum is a Lewis acid.


Bud isn't horrible, but it is bland and the sweet aftertaste isn't very appealling. It's certainly drinkable, but beyond its alcohol content, there really isn't much of a reason to drink it. The combination of mild flavor and light body makes the beer unobjectionable, but minimizes the taste. The scorning of Bud may have taken on a social significance beyond what the flaws of the beer itself merit, but it simply isn't very good beer.

No comments: