New York Craft Distillers Organize --- In Hopes of Surviving

Craft distillers in New York state have organized a Craft Distillers Guild. Frankly, they have to do something, because that state's legislators are hell-bent on preventing them from doing business. Ralph Erenzo of Tuthilltown Spirits passed along the press released quoted below. I've mentioned him here before because of Tuthilltown's struggles to build a business within the confines of the nearly lunatic alcohol regulations in New York state.

Albany, New York New York craft distillers met at the offices of the NEW YORK FARM BUREAU  on April 21st to organize and launch the NEW YORK CRAFT DISTILLERS GUILD.   The first Guild meeting was organized by the Hudson Valley Agri-Business  Development Corporation. The location of the meeting at the offices of the  NY FARM BUREAU is no accident. We want to make the firm statement  that spirits production in New York is an agricultural undertaking," says Todd Erling, Executive Director of HVADC. Distillers use agricultural products, and craft distilleries have the potential to create  new markets for New York grown fruits and grain while also creating a new  tax source for the State. New York has a long tradition of spirits production, dating back to colonial times. Prohibition killed off the distilled spirits industry in New York and it only recently returned. Changes in the State's Alcohol Beverage Control Law have made it possible in recent years for small agriculture-based distillers to develop and flourish. There are currently thirteen licensed craft distillers in New York and that number is expected to double over the next five years. According to Ralph Erenzo, owner of Tuthilltown Spirits in Gardiner, "A small distillery operating at the limit of production allowed by their license can generate up to $1 million in annual Excise and Sales Taxes to the State; not including the multiplier effect." Nationally, small distilleries are now producing a wide range of high quality hand-crafted spirits of almost every type, from bourbon, to brandies, rum, gin, and vodka. Craft distilleries offer significant economic value to the state. They hire locally, buy local raw materials, and draw tourism dollars to New York. The newly-formed New York Craft Distillers Guild will focus on  advocating for regulations that are responsive to the needs of craft distilleries and on branding and promoting New York-made spirits.

For more information on craft distillers, who, in my opinion, are creating truly astounding spirits, see the American Distilling Institute's homepage. And big tip o' the snifter to Ralph for fighting the good fight, and for keeping me posted on it.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 3

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

I was not surprised by this pre-screening reaction. If I’ve learned anything in three years since my beer book came out, it’s that the world of craft brewing is highly insular and short-sighted. Its inhabitants believe that the world revolves around beer in general and craft beer in particular. 

They are so blinded by their insularity that they don’t know that roughly 96% of the beer sold in the U.S. is NOT craft beer. They don’t understand that the rest of the world doesn’t drink craft beer; doesn’t idolize Greg Koch and Sam Caligione. That the rest of the world doesn’t know or care about brewers’ conflicts, the three-tier system, or anything else connected to beer and brewing.

That’s not a criticism. Insularity and short-sightedness enable “groups” to create and maintain solidarity. (People who work in publishing are even worse, frankly, which is why I avoid hanging around with writers, agents, and editors.)

But there’s another reason I was not surprised by the pre-screening dogpile: Criticism is easy. Empathy is not. 

Most people aren’t writers and filmmakers (or entrepreneurs) and they don’t know how hard it is to write a book, or produce a film, or, for that matter, build a brewery. These are activities that require long hours, sacrifice, self-discipline. And in the end, if the writer or filmmaker -- or brewer -- has done her job right, the finished product looks easy. Like something any fool could do.

Case in point: Some months back, a couple of beer enthusiasts asked me for an interview. They run a website and forum and do podcasts about beer. One of them said he liked the book and then said something like: “Well, it was probably pretty easy, wasn’t it? I mean, the story was right there. All you had to do was write down the facts.” Or words to that effect.

Well, no. That’s not quite what happened. The “facts” were scattered hither and yon, buried in hundred year old books and in magazines and interviews and so forth. I spent five years tracking down those facts and then piecing them together into a coherent “story” that I hoped others would enjoy. But I knew that he didn’t know that. Indeed, the fact that he assumed it was “easy” meant I’d been at least a little bit successful: My hard work is invisible, which allows the main event --- the book’s narrative --- to take center stage.

So I understand how hard it is to create something from nothing --- and I know that people who don’t do what I do don’t understand how I do what I do. Again, not a criticism; just a fact. I have no idea how to run a brewery, perform brain surgery, or repair automobiles. (So I try to show respect for those who do.) 

But I also know that because people don’t know how I do what I do (or how Anat does what she does), the critics always want something other than what they got. 

For example: Many people criticize me for not including the colonial period in my book, or for not writing a book that was only about the craft brewing industry. That’s okay. They’re entitled to their opinion, just as I’m entitled to mine. And in my informed opinion, I had good reason to write the book the way I wrote it, not least of which was that, ya know, I wrote the book I wanted to write, not the book that someone else wanted me to write. 

(So to those critics I always say --- politely --- “Those sound like a great topic. I look forward to reading your take on it. Let me know when you’ve finished  your book.”)

(I’m still waiting for those books to appear. . . . )

Next: Showtime!

McSweeney's Syllabus: "Writing for Nonreaders In the Postprint Era."

Oh, man, if you've ever been to college, or ever taught at the university level (poor you. Poor me!), this is for you. Hilarious. Also slightly sick/sad/scary, because how much anyone wanna bet me that some professor is out there right now creating a "real" course with a horrifyingly similar syllabus?

Tip o' the mug to Nicholas Carr at Rough Type. I just finished reading his book The Big Switch. Interesting and well-written and worth your time.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 2

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

 Fast forward to early 2009: Anat had finished the film. The economy was in freefall; it was (and is) harder than ever for indie filmmakers to find distribution, but Anat, being Anat, came up with a plan: She partnered with Fathom Events to show the film one night in theaters. (Fathom has developed a successful business screening such special events.) 

The film would be followed by a half-hour live discussion by some of the people in the film. She asked me to participate in that discussion because I’m a historian, not a beer person, and therefore I’d add an outsider’s perspective.

Anat’s production company, her publicity firm, and Fathom began promoting the film: They used a website, Anat tweeted, publicists sent out press releases, etc.

The blogosphere chatter began. And sailed along a predictable trajectory: the “beer geeks” pissed and moaned about how this film was no good, the idea was old, there is no “beer war.” 

“Rhonda Kallman is in the film? Why? She’s not a craft brewer!”

“Who the hell is Anat Baron? She’s not a beermaker. How can SHE know anything about beer?” 

“Sam’s in it. That’s good. But why not other craft-gods? And who cares about distributors? That battle is over! Why bother to make a film about it?”

Mind you, NO ONE HAD SEEN THE FILM. 

The pre-release chatter consisted of mindless knee-jerking on the part of people who claim they want “craft beer” to be noticed, loved, and consumed, but who are, at the same time, irrationally dedicated to denouncing anything and everything that does not fit their vision of what craft beer is and how it ought to be portrayed (and revered and adored.)

They complained about the price of admission, about the fact that it was one night only, about the fact that only 400-s0me theaters would be airing the film. (The event was broadcast via satellite; not every theater is equipped with satellite streaming equipment; therefore not every theater could show the film.)

Even the fact that Anat was promoting the film pissed people off: They complained about the overdose of press releases, emails, etc. They seemed not to realize that the “beer world” was not Anat’s only target. She wanted anyone and everyone to see the film. So of course she launched a PR blitz: she’s trying to fill seats in a theater.

But beer folks see the world through their prism and they didn’t understand that this was a film first, and only a beer film secondarily. Anat didn’t make the film for the beer world. She made the film because she was trying to explore and make sense of the logic of capitalism. Beer simply provided a lens through which to examine the topic. (I understood that intuitively: My book about beer was a work of  history that explored one aspect of American society. I used beer as the vehicle for that exploration.)

Next: The nature of “group think” and the creative process.

Speaking of E-Quarius and Other Matters: Wine Guy Makes Like Craft Brewer; Goes Small

So in the interest of continuing the conversation about beer, the age of E-Quarius, and so forth: Here's an article from today's New York Times about a winemaker who's seen the light and downsized. I think he and Greg Koch oughta have a chat. And I'll check back with him in ten years. And contemplate the ways in which all the parts of the world are connected.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 1

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Several people asked me if I planned to comment on Beer Wars and the events surrounding it -- and I thought, “hey, good idea.” (‘Cause, doh, it hadn’t occurred to me to do so . . . ) Good idea because I’d like to offer a larger, more textured perspective than has been dished out thus far.

So. You guessed it: Another! Multi-part! Series!

First some background to the saga, which unfolded over the course of several years: My beer book came out in September 2006, about a week prior to the Great American Beer Festival, and so I headed to the festival to sign copies of the book. While I was there, a refreshingly sober, decidedly chic woman -- Anat Baron -- introduced herself. She explained that she was making a film about the brewing industry. (At that point, she’d been working on the project for about a year.) 

By coincidence, I was scheduled to be in St. Louis in November for a book signing on the same day that she planned to be in that city to do some filming. So we met up in St. Louis and she interviewed (filmed) me for about two hours, asking questions about brewing history, etc. (Because I’d been involved in several documentaries, I know that an hour of filming equals about a minute of “air time,” so I knew that my part in the final product would be small.)

Over the next several years, we stayed in touch by email and compared notes as we both wrestled with our respective projects -- her film and my new book, a history of meat in America. Because we communicated so often, I quickly realized that writing a book and making a film are nearly identical processes. We both had to find our “story,” identify our “characters” (which, in both our cases, were real people), construct a narrative arc based on the characters’ stories; do lots of research; collect and sift through mountains of raw material; write, edit. Edit again; and then edit some more.

I also got to know Anat. She’s extremely intelligent, blunt, intelligent, determined, self-confident, self-assured, talented, intelligent. Did I mention that she’s intelligent? And talented? And self-confident? Perhaps fearless is a better word.

Next: "Beer Wars" collides with the beer world.