The reality is, as many professional and amateur brewers are finding, NEIPA is a difficult style to master.
What's difficult about brewing a beer? Why look for trouble or read to then believe all variations of blogs written frequently by those knowing no better? What can be so wrong about doing what is known good historical practise, avoiding what isn't except for when you intend to trial to determine the influence of a single variant?
If anything there is currently a lot of experimentation going on and the science is playing catch up,
There is indeed, perhaps mostly by non-scientific amateurs without accessing the last 150 years of scientific research who then go on some ego trip writting a blog load of rubbish.
due to unconventional grists,
Surely that's not a new problem? An example. In 1942 or 43 it was thought Britain wouldn't have sufficient barley to feed the nation's population and make enough beer, so trialled beers using alternatives. They were successful making a good tasting perfectly clear beer with 40% oats, although it didn't prove to be necessary. Barley doesn't grow well in Africa, so there use sorgum making beer which can be bought all around the world and it's possible you've drank it without even knowing. Americans have practised separate cereal mashing since prohibition, if not before. This isn't new, it's probably been the greatest variable in the entire history of brewing and I'm sure some procedures long since known to be futile have been recently claimed to be a new way forward. Beer isn't unique in this regard.
Until mastering water treatment my beers didn't match many on offer in decent pubs. Water treatment is easier to learn than that of riding a bike and many similar hurdles life has. Get your water tested, learn the facts, cut out the crap and do it. Don't just talk about it as if it was impossible as some, seemingly for personal interests, would have people believe.
Yes, a potential minefield as I have found. In a hurry grabbing an East Coast yeast some years ago thinking it was East Anglian to find it wasn't and denuded virtually all flavour from an extravagant and exotic malt bill. I've been a lot more cautious since and this is the first year I've spent money on yeast for probably 4. I've 5 or 6 live strains in the fridge at the moment, a little above the practical level in my world.
Did this recently after putting a yeast into a wrong container when regenerating my stock. From the resulting beer, one strain would seem to have been dominant. This was but proof of the greatness of the hobby, not an obstruction or difficulty, just one of the steps that can be taken. It's an extra string to a bow should it be wished. Yeast can easily be treated by brewers like good breeders of dogs and birds who won't keep those that don't perform as wanted.
and different hopping techniques.
What is difficult or scientific about this? I look at my stock to choose what might be most suitable, weigh them, decide when to pitch, do it and log it. My findings get logged when drinking the beer. This is part of my hobby and it would likely be duller if it wasn't. I cannot see it as an obstacle to producing good beer.
Whilst it may still turn out a fad, there is some creative and cutting edge (possibly an overstatement) brewing being done. There is also a difference between muddy, turbid, opaque and hazy, with good examples leaning towards the latter two.
This is where I think our opinions differ most and might instead have written .............
There is also a difference between muddy, turbid, opaque and hazy, with poor brewing practises leaning towards the former.
Each to his own.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.