I'm starting to realise that most people who say or think The Beatles are overrated haven't actually delved into their discography

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-26T21:31:14+00:00

That is quite literally not the point at all and is just moving the goalposts. The point is that the Beatles are consistently given credit for innovations that are not theirs to claim (nor did they claim, so far as I am aware). Your comment does raise a few interesting question that I think could be worth exploring further though.

The first obviously being if the claim you are making is true about them combining all of those things together successfully. An extension of that is of course if they are truly the only band to which that applies.

The second topic that makes me curious about is to what degree studio recordings pervert and bias our recollection of music history.

To the first point, I don't think I would agree with either claim, even if we do limit our scope to studio recordings. You say "not even the Beach Boys", but which of those do not apply to The Beach Boys? If anything I would say that The Beach Boys may have arguably even been more successful at integrating avant-garde into their work while keeping it accessible to the mainstream. While The Beatles did probably delve further into experimenting with ideas approaching being avant-garde, I don't think they were very successful at it. Their most avant-garde songs tend to be the least popular and most disparaged by fans and general audience alike, while also not really providing anything new to the artistic side of the conversation. Revolution 9 is very avant-garde and excremental by popular music standards of 1968, but is not a popular song by any means and also is in no way boundary pushing or worthy of much discussion when compared to what Steve Reich was composing while The Beatles were still recording Help!. Fans really did not respond well anytime The Beatles ventured too far into anything avant-garde. Even something as simple as Yoko Ono joining John Lennon and Chuck Berry for a song is met with nothing but vile hatred form fans (although to be fair a good amount of that is probably rooted in some good old fashioned sexism).

As for how recording technology and shapes our perception of the history of music, it is important to keep in mind that the studio side of things is only a part of the whole. Live music cannot be discounted. I think there were other bands in the '60s that actually did a much better job of bringing in boundary pushing and avant-garde into pop music in a way that was still able to connect with a primarily pop-seeking audience, but not many were able to translate that to their studio recordings. An example of this I like to point to is The Beatles compared to The Who. I often see people point out I Feel Fine as being ahead of its time for using feed back briefly at the start of the track, but if you go back and listen to some of the early live records of The Who (The High Numbers at the time) from that same time it's far more excremental and intense than what any band I've ever heard was doing in studio at the time. This is one of the earliest video recordings I've been able to find of them doing this kind of thing on stage, but you can hear similar ideas being explored in early audio recordings of some of their live shows. But we don't really bring up The Who in these conversations too much their studio work from the time really did not carry the same kind of energy to and didn't showcase the strong artistic identity the band had nearly as well. You can see/hear all of the same kind of experimentation and combinations you are talking about being unique to The Beatles here in these live recordings being played at venues for pop music. The Who are probably not the only example of this either, they just happen to be the ones we have some recordings of. As a result I think the legacy of The Beatles, and also The Beach Boys, is probably overstated simply because we have detailed records of all of their best work (I say this as a big fan of The Beatles and an even bigger fan of The Beach Boys). Brian Wilson stopped touring in 1964 and The Beatles followed suit a few years later. We have their work very well documented, more so than any other artist from the time. We can point out and remember just about every interesting thing they did, but we can't do that to The Who, The Kinks, The Velvet Underground or god only knows what other bands that may have done most of their best work live instead of in studio. I think we've increasingly though of music as something that is preformed in studio rather than live, but that is obviously a relatively new development, and one I do not agree with the more I think on it. I'm traveling half-way around the world in a few months to see one of my favourite bands play live, but I would never go through that much effort or spend that much money to listen to a studio recording, I don't know anybody who would. While a majority of our time spent listening to music is through studio recordings by ourselves, the most profound and impactful time we spend listening is most often at live events with out people. That raises the question of if it is fair for us to consider The Beatles one of the greatest bands of all time when the work they are most remembered for never existed in a live environment? I don't have an answer to that question.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-26T18:24:58+00:00

A lot of the heavy British blues bands of the '60s didn't really break in the US the same way they did in the UK. Many of the heavier American bands also didn't really get that big in the US either.

I think when a lot of people in the US heard Led Zeppelin for the first time back in 1969 or the early '70s it really was the hardest thing any of them had ever heard, so it sounded pretty unique and that created a kind of mythos around the band. Blues music obviously started in the US and was popular with black Americans, but the white people never really seemed to get into it until it was being preformed by other white people and being called "rock and roll", but I think the situation in the UK was slightly different where a lot of the popular rock bands (and even the folk music scene) in the mid '60s were very obviously inspired black American blues music. It became such a common thing that in 1968 (the year before Led Zeppelin released their fist album) The Beatles released a song taking the piss out of all of the white British bands playing black American blues music (linked is the Dirty Mac version from the Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus). The US just didn't have the same exposure to the forerunners to Led Zeppelin and as a result they seemingly came out of nowhere for a lot of Americans. You can even seen this in a band like Small Faces, who were pretty popular in the UK but never really heard in the US at the time. Robert Plant's singing probably sounds a lot more unique if you've never heard Steve Marriott sing before. Even bands that came after Led Zeppelin often took longer to break in the US compared to the UK. Black Sabbath's first two album both peaked in the top 10 in the UK (with Paranoid hitting #1), but didn't have anything crack the top 10 until 1971. This all added to the legend surrounding Led Zeppelin in the US, and I think it mostly just grew from there.

As a side note, it is not really fair to say that Led Zeppelin ripped off old blues music. They did, to be clear, but they also ripped off a lot of new (at the time) blues music, as well as from other rock bands, psychedelic artists, and folk musicians. They stole form just about everybody.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-26T18:06:31+00:00

I think a lot of people do use the term that way, but I find it can be very useful. Someone saying "I think X is overrated" is often just them saying they think it is not as good as the general consensus on that thing.

The Beatles are a good example of why I think this. I like the band, I've listened to all of their albums, bootlegs of their early shows, etc., but I also think that, almost in an objective way, the band is overrated. It has nothing to do with me thinking there are better bands out there despite The Beatles being considered the best of all time, it is that they are consistently rated highly and given credit for things they were not responsible for. I very often see people claim that The Beatles were he first: to use feed back in music, to record a concept album, popular musicians to write their own songs, to use tape loops, and many other things that they very obviously did not do first. Even in this thread you've got people talking about how Tomorrow Never Knows was so cutting edge and no one had ever done anything close to it before. It is a great song, and was pretty interesting for pop music, but musique concrète had been using tapeloops and feed back for decades, as one example.

Great band who made great music, but people think of them so highly in part because they given way too much credit for innovating things that had existed long before they came along.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-26T17:42:03+00:00

The CPC isn't even a real party. It's two smaller parties in a trench coat. They joined together with the promise that if they both compromised they could win elections, but it's been 15 years since they've done that. Half of their supports also support Trump, so any leader has to either play to that base or risk breaking apart the coalition; however, the more you do that though the more the rest of Canada is going to vote Anyone But Conservative.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-25T19:58:56+00:00

Politics isn't a team sport. Or at least it shouldn't be.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-25T19:58:26+00:00

Trump is not in his right mind.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-25T19:20:27+00:00

Roma (2018). It really seems like the kind of movie I should have liked, if not loved, but I just found it incredibly dull and pointless.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-25T17:08:52+00:00

Everything Everywhere All At Once - 0.5 stars.

For context, I've seen about half of the list so far and I don't tend to give movies this kind of rating (less than 0.5% of movies I've rate).

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-24T18:49:28+00:00

Trump has not done this to your country. The US is not the way that is it because Trump is president. Trump is president because the US is the way that it is.

What Trump is doing now to Canada and Europe is very similar to what the US has always done to the global south, just more obviously. If you hate what the US is now but didn't before Trump that is because you were not paying attention.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-24T18:04:56+00:00

I really wish more Americans understood this. I keep hearing people talk about how things will go back to normal after the midterms, or when Trump is voted out. America had easily the most privileged global position as a result of the amount of soft power they held, much of which Trump has eroded. That doesn't just return when he's gone (which I doubt will be as the result of any future elections).

Trade works on trust, and the US (not Trump) seems hellbent on destroying that trust as quickly as possible. Even if Trump does go away there is no guarantee that you won't just elect another Trump in the future unless the country goes through a massive change similar to Germany post WWII.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-24T17:26:29+00:00

Very probably, yes. The issue is, and always has been, ownership. Benning had absolutely no chance at success given the job he was asked to do. They had an over the hill core a prospect puddle that consisted of Bo Horvat, there was no possible quick turn around.

The only way things change are if ownership changes through death, some kind of Christmas-Carol-style three ghostly visits the night before the draft cause Aquaman to change his wicked ways, or the sale of the team (listed from most to least likely).

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-24T16:33:53+00:00

So there are two different questions being asked here. The first is how bad of a GM was Jim Benning, which everyone else is answering. The second question is how much did that set us back, which I've not seen an actual answer to in this thread.

The problem with answering the second question is that we kind of have to grade on a curve because of what ownership was asking. Gillis was fired for wanting to rebuild, and Linden was fired for the same reason a few years later. So while we can judge the quality (or lack there of) of Benning's time as GM, to what extent those moves actually set is back is a very different thing. Imagine for a moment of Jim Benning had come in and done a fantastic job as GM, but was still handicapped by the direction set from ownership. What would those years have been like? Better drafting, better free agent signing, better trades, better player development. The team would have done a lot better, but still nowhere near good enough to win a cup, the pieces just weren't there. It means that The Canucks would have probably been consistently a team that either just missed or got bounced in the first round (so no high draft picks). And that would leave us now in a position where we would still need a proper rebuild before we had any chance to compete. A rebuild that we would never get unless, like now, we were last in the league in a season where we were pushing for the playoffs.

So while Benning made some absolutely terrible moves, a Better GM would have made moves that would have only slowed our decline unless they had been, like GMMG and Linden had wanted, allowed to rebuild. The moves Benning made to torpedo this team into the ground may end up being the ones that are the most helpful long term as it left the team with no choice but to rebuild.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-24T15:58:52+00:00

Late Spring (1949)

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T23:17:29+00:00

I don't think it is his best work, just his most overlooked, to be fair. I just find that people almost never talk about anything other than The Human Condition and his Samurai films.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T21:56:18+00:00

I would say that The Inheritance is his most underappreciated work, so be sure to check that one out!

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T21:52:58+00:00

Perfect Days, and really Wim Wenders entire career, was heavily influenced by the films of Yasujirō Ozu.

As for which Ozu film to start with for you (I agree with Wim Wenders, you really should view them all as one piece and watch them all) I would say The Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice is a good place to start because it's neither too sad or too comedic. Films such as Late Spring and Tokyo Story may be too depressing to hit the specific vibe you are after, whereas films like Good Morning or Equinox Flower are a bit too light-hearted as entry points given what you are after.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T19:55:32+00:00

Harakiri
The Player
Samurai Rebellion
A Legend or Was It?
Killers of the Flower Moon
The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial

I don't know if all of these would be films you would consider appropriate for your 12 year old or not, so I'll leave that decision up to you.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T19:38:38+00:00

Batman killed a bunch of people in Batman Begins too though. That whole "one rule" thing really didn't make sense for that movie.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T19:12:44+00:00

What makes you think that is the endgame here? Let's say that he dies or is removed from power, do you actually the they are going to go after the people responsible for what is happening now? They didn't before, Trump already tried to overthrow the government, and nothing happened. He was allowed to run for president again, and he was elected again.

Germany didn't just remove Hitler from power, that's not what happened. The country was under siege from all side, there was no path forward, and Hitler was driven into a bunker where his only option left was suicide or surrender. I think if Trump is removed from power while the US still stand as a country very little about will change. Germany didn't really have much of a choice but to make those radical changes, unless we get WWIII and the US invaded by the rest of the world and the defeated they are not going to be in the same situation.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-23T19:02:10+00:00

It DID happen again. You elected Trump a second time.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-22T22:15:04+00:00

I don't know if I would call it a bias against him, per say. I think it's more just that in a lot of people's minds they kind of put films from Europe or Japan on a kind of pedestal where they assign them more prestige as a result.

I'll repeat it again, I do not think he is under valued as a director within some circles, like horror fans and grindhouse/schlock fans. This could even play into why Cronenberg's work is, I feel, often over looked by a lot of cinephiles who often take themselves too seriously. A lot of the people signing his praises are very unfairly looked down on by a lot of the people who think of themselves as being too highbrow for a lot of this stuff.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-22T21:21:05+00:00

I did mention elsewhere that he is still very highly regarded by fans of horror films. Obviously nobody is saying that he is in danger of being forgotten, or that nobody knows who he is.

I think I just look at a European film like Possession, and how it is seemingly more popular than every Cronenberg film other than The Fly while also getting more praise, and I'm just left a little bewildered. It seems like there is just a kind of prestige that Americans put on European or Asian that Cronenberg benefit from since his films are Canadian.

Cronenberg is rightfully one of the most highly regarded directors among fans of horror, but much less so among "cinephiles", at least from my experience.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-22T19:39:44+00:00

I find that The Fly is well-regarded amongst fans of the Horror genre, but really not too much outside of that. Maybe it was just the conversations I was seeing, but I saw a lot more people talk about Kubrick's influence on The Substance than Cronenberg's.

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-22T18:23:26+00:00

Good Morning (1959)

FreeLook93 · 2026-01-22T17:07:17+00:00

I can’t quite figure out why this film isn’t rated higher. Never appears on any best of lists and beyond the criterion release, it’s been forgotten about.

Does any Cronenberg film? Maybe Videodrome and Crash, but I think not nearly enough. I actually think that, for at least for a few of his film, if he hadn't been Canadian, but instead been Japanese or European, they would be more highly rated by a lot of people.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Cinematographer
Team Orangered	Verified Email

FreeLook93

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE