u/Siddhartaable

I’m genuinely curious about this because I’ve always found it hard to understand the “overrated” argument. Their influence on music is enormous, and beyond that, I find their music remarkably creative and innovative for its time. They experimented with songwriting, production, instrumentation, and helped pioneer or popularize countless ideas that later became fundamental to popular music. That said, I’m aware I may have some bias because of how highly I regard them, so I’d love to hear other perspectives: if you think the Beatles are overrated,

Private jets, superyachts, golf courses and other absurd luxuries should be banned

I live in Spain. For the last two months, there have been days when going outside between roughly noon and late evening feels like walking into an oven. Summers here have always been hot, but what we're experiencing now is another thing. Every year we are told to adapt: use less energy, take public transport, recycle, eat differently, fly less, buy efficient appliances, turn the AC up a degree.

Fine. But at some point we need to talk about consumption that serves essentially no purpose beyond luxury.

Private jets, superyachts, recreational helicopters, enormous private golf courses in drought-prone areas, heated outdoor pools, megamansions that consume the energy of dozens of normal homes, space tourism, etc. They should be prohibited.

The principle I'm talking about is proportionality. There is a difference between emissions generated because millions of ordinary people need heating, transport, food or electricity and emissions generated because someone doesn't want to spend three hours on a train or wants to maintain a floating palace.

What annoys me most is the asymmetry of the whole climate debate. Ordinary people are constantly asked to make marginal sacrifices while we continue to tolerate forms of consumption whose environmental cost per person is almost comically disproportionate.

If climate change is serious enough that governments expect hundreds of millions of people to change how they travel, eat, heat their homes and consume, then surely it is serious enough to say that some extraordinarily wasteful luxuries simply shouldn't exist.

Forgive my ignorance here because I'm genuinely out of touch with what teenagers are listening to nowadays. I'm not asking whether good new music exists — obviously it does — but whether there are currently artists making genuinely interesting, ambitious music whose core audience is teenagers.

What I'm thinking about is how strange this looks historically. The Beatles were basically a teenage phenomenon at the beginning, yet within a few years they were making Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Michael Jackson became the biggest pop star on Earth while still having enormous appeal to kids and teenagers. You could add Nirvana and plenty of other examples: music could be massively adolescent, commercially dominant and still end up being taken very seriously artistically.

Does an equivalent exist today? Who are the 15–18-year-olds listening to who might actually be remembered as important artists 20 or 30 years from now?

I know it's a strange question at first. But I'm a big fan of horror movies, and in fact, most of them—my favorites, in fact—don't scare me. So I was wondering if something similar could happen with comedies.

I've been stuck in this rabbit hole for months and I don't know how to get out.

Where do I even start?

I started playing guitar when I was about 14, mostly by learning Nirvana songs. And honestly, I still recommend Nirvana to anyone starting out on guitar. A lot of their songs are incredibly simple, but they're also perfect for learning how much you can actually do with a few chords, a good melody and changes in dynamics.

You could say something similar about early Beatles songs, although I'd argue they're usually one step more difficult, and maybe one step more fun to play, although obviously that's subjective.

Anyway, Nirvana has been one of my favorite bands since I was a teenager. So have the Beatles. But for some reason I never really saw much of a connection between the two.

Until a few months ago.

I was making a Spotify playlist called "Nevermind Before Nevermind." I'm a bit obsessive about playlists, and the idea was to collect songs that somehow contributed to the sound Nirvana eventually arrived at on Nevermind. The fun part of making playlists like this is that you inevitably end up doing a ridiculous amount of research: interviews, old Reddit threads, influences mentioned by the musicians, bands from the same scenes, etc.

Obviously the playlist started filling up with the usual suspects: Pixies, Mudhoney, Meat Puppets, Wipers, punk, post-punk, hardcore and so on.

But while researching it, one name kept appearing: The Beatles.

I already knew Cobain loved the Beatles. I knew about his particular admiration for Lennon, and about his idea of combining Beatles-like songwriting with the heaviness of bands like Black Sabbath. None of this was new information to me.

What I had never really done was listen to the two bands back-to-back and actually look for the connection.

And this is where I fell down the rabbit hole. Because once you hear it, you can't unhear it.

I'm not talking about Helter Skelter being heavy or Yer Blues being dirty. That's the obvious comparison, and honestly I don't think it's particularly interesting.

I'm talking about the actual songwriting underneath the production.

Take away Nirvana's distortion, the low tunings and the early-'90s production. Take away the Beatles' vocal harmonies, jangly guitars and early-'60s production. What remains in certain songs sounds weirdly related to me: simple chord changes that somehow don't feel simple, major/minor ambiguity, repetitive guitar figures, extremely strong vocal melodies, sudden changes of mood, little chromatic movements, call-and-response vocals, and songs that are fundamentally pop songs despite sounding darker than the pop surrounding them.

And, more specifically, I keep hearing Lennon in Cobain.

I should say that I don't know enough music theory to explain this properly. I'm an amateur guitarist, not a musicologist. So I'd actually love it if someone who understands harmony better could tell me whether there's something objective going on here or whether I've simply listened to these songs too many times and destroyed my brain.

Some examples of what I mean: listen to Ticket to Ride (especially the stripped-down version I attached above) and then to this All Apologies demo. I think you can immediately start to hear where I'm coming from. Then try All I've Got to Do and On a Plain. It Won't Be Long is another one: it might not be obvious at first, but focus on the verses, the darker chord changes and especially those "yeah, yeah, yeah" backing vocals, which remind me a lot of the simple vocal hooks Nirvana used in songs like On a Plain and Lithium. About a Girl is of course the most obvious example, since Cobain himself connected it to his obsession with early Beatles records, while And I Love Her is interesting for obvious reasons given that Kurt actually covered it. And finally there's She Loves You: this one sounds ridiculous until you pick up a guitar and play the chord changes without trying to make them sound like the Beatles. Strip away the 1963 production and harmonies, slow it down or add some distortion, and suddenly some of those changes don't feel that far removed from Nirvana at all. I'm not saying any of these songs are copies of each other, it's more that Lennon and Cobain often seem to arrive at a similar combination of very simple musical ideas, slightly unexpected chord changes, huge melodies and ridiculously memorable vocal hooks.

I'd rather pay a fraction of the price to see a great tribute band in a small venue than spend ten times more to watch the original band decades past their prime.

A good tribute act is usually focused on recreating the music as faithfully as possible. They're often at the peak of their musicianship, full of energy, and genuinely excited to be on stage. Meanwhile, many legendary bands are now in their 60s, 70s, or even older. That's completely understandable, but age inevitably affects vocals, stamina, and the overall performance.

For me, live music is about how good the concert is today, not about who recorded the album 40 years ago. If I close my eyes and one show sounds better, has more energy, and costs a tenth of the price, that's the better concert.

I'm not talking about your favorite movie, nor do I even care if the movie was good or not. I'm talking about that moment when, for whatever reason, the experience of watching a film became something special, whether it was because you saw it at a festival, with friends, or because something extraordinary happened while you were watching it.

In my case, it was "Showgirls" (1995) a couple of years ago at a festival called "Cine Caliente," introduced by a drag queen who made funny comments about the film as it was being shown and provided musical entertainment with a DJ.

It truly changed my perception of the film, which had never interested me much before, and it became one of my favorites. I really think it was quite misunderstood in its time and that Verhoeven was much smarter than the critics and the public of the time.

La derecha española, la misma que sigue negando el cambio climático, que da espacio a los antivacunas y que habla de supuestos planes para invadir Europa orquestados por la izquierda, Soros, Bill Gates y quién sabe quién más, ahora te llama conspiranoico por plantear que EEUU e Israel (dos países que Dios me libre de tachar de intervencionistas, visto su impecable historial de respetar escrupulosamente la soberanía de otros estados) pudieron haberse coordinado con Marruecos, con quien comparten intereses estratégicos, para ejercer presión sobre España mediante una "invasión" migratoria convenientemente instrumentalizada.

Tócate los huevos, Manolo.

I've always heard that Lennon and McCartney tended to look down on many of George Harrison's compositions because they didn't consider them to be on par with their own. Even on Get Back, you can see Lennon cruelly mocking "I Me Mine," saying that "that" was a waltz and that they played rock and roll.

The funny thing is that, today, many of the Beatles' most famous songs were written by Harrison.

I also read somewhere that something similar happened with Kurt Cobain when he heard some of David Grohl's songs that would later become classics with the Foo Fighters.

This makes me wonder if musicians who reach an extraordinarily high level of composition can develop a kind of "expert bias": a blind spot that leads them to undervalue songs that do not fit with their own standards or their way of understanding composition, even if objectively they are great songs.

A music scene doesn't have to be huge. Sometimes it's just a handful of bands, one or two venues, and a small but dedicated group of regulars who know each other and keep it alive.

So have you ever been part of a music scene?

Not just a fan of a genre, but an actual local scene: playing in bands, going to the same venues, knowing the musicians, promoters, and regular crowd.

If so, what scene was it, and what made it special?

What was it, where was it, and what made it unique?

Here in Spain there's a saying that goes, "Punks are good people pretending to be bad people. Hippies are bad people pretending to be good people." But I just don't quite see it. I mean, the hippie movement is full of posers, but isn't the same true of punk? Grunge? Or any other subculture?

Throughout my life I've had the opportunity to meet some of these hippies, and while it's true that some of them came from wealthy families and were simply living the "experience", I've also met some who genuinely lived on the margins of society: in communes, on the streets, with their own gardens, etc., following the principles of the hippie life.

When I read a bit about the history of the movement, I see that it's a movement that ultimately failed in its aims, but that in its beginnings it was quite active culturally (music, art, film) and politically. I have the feeling that the same people who later became punks, if they had lived through the 60s, would have become hippies. The only difference I see with the latter is the lack of hope, but you can't blame them for at least having tried.

I liked the film and thoroughly enjoyed watching it. But, as is the case with almost all of his films, I had the feeling that everything is treated with a constant seriousness. In Nolan's universe, there's hardly any room for humor, irony, or absurdity, even when the original material contains them.

And that, precisely, is one of the things that surprises me most in an adaptation of the Odyssey.

Homer's work has a great deal of humor. Obviously, it's not a comedy, but there is a continuous mix of registers. It can shift from terror to wit, from tragedy to mockery.

The episode of Polyphemus is a good example. It's a scene of enormous tension, but also very funny. Odysseus tricks the Cyclops by telling him his name is "Nobody." After blinding him, Polyphemus cries out for help, shouting, "Nobody is killing me!" The other Cyclopes arrive, hear this, and leave, thinking nothing is wrong.

Homer's work is full of such episodes that show us the hero's cunning, ridicule the arrogant, and make the narrative more human.

In contrast, Nolan seems to systematically eliminate that register. Everything takes on the same solemn tone, as if any moment of lightness would weaken the importance of the story. For me, it has the opposite effect: when everything is momentous, in the end nothing stands out.

I think the comparison with Total Recall (Verhoeven) and Inception illustrates the difference well. Both tell very similar stories. But Verhoeven introduces dark humor and irony. He never lets the film become a sermon about his own importance. Nolan, on the other hand, films a similar concept with almost uninterrupted seriousness.

Picture a low-budget coming-of-age released around 1998–1999. Think rainy suburbs, cheap apartments, empty highways at night, awkward romance, skateboards, thrift-store clothes, VHS aesthetics... the kind of movie that becomes a cult classic years later.

The obvious references would be bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Hole, Nirvana, Elastica, Blur, Pulp, Suede, Supergrass, The Chemical Brothers, Massive Attack, Portishead... but also more melodic and pop-leaning acts like The Cardigans, Texas, Garbage, Sleeper, Saint Etienne, Dubstar, or other bands that still capture that unmistakable late-'90s atmosphere.

Here's the catch: because it's a small independent film with almost no music budget, the soundtrack couldn't afford the biggest hits.

I'm looking for:

- Deep cuts from famous bands (album tracks, B-sides, forgotten singles).

- Amazing songs from underrated or obscure bands from roughly 1990–1999.

- Alternative rock, shoegaze, britpop, indie rock, trip hop, big beat, electronic, dream pop... anything that fits the mood.

Please avoid the biggest classics ("1979", "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Celebrity Skin", etc.).

I want the kind of song that makes people say, "How did this never become famous?"

What would be on that soundtrack?

Siempre que veo clips suyos está solo y tengo curiosidad por saber si alguna vez lo ha explicado o algo.

Do you know of any scenes that seem designed solely for the director to show off their brilliance, but actually detract from the film? I'm referring to those moments where it feels like the director stops telling a story and starts boasting about their talent: incredibly long tracking shots that add nothing, cameras spinning aimlessly, interminable slow motion, pretentious monologues, or symbolism so obvious it's ridiculous. I'm not saying these techniques are inherently bad. When they serve the story, they can be incredible. The problem arises when the scene seems to exist only so the viewer can think, "Wow, what a great director." In those cases, instead of drawing you deeper into the film, it completely pulls you out of it. Can you think of any scenes or films that have given you this feeling?

I'm curious to know if it really changes the way you experience live music, or if it's more of a myth than anything else. If you'd like, share what you consumed, which concert it was, and how it influenced aspects like the music, the lighting, the atmosphere, or the memories you were left with afterward. Did it make you feel more connected to the performance, the crowd, or the artist? Or did it end up being distracting or overwhelming? I'm also interested in hearing about experiences that didn't go as expected, whether they were positive or negative. I'm looking for honest personal stories and different perspectives rather than advice or recommendations.

Zombies

Vampires

Ghosts / Haunted Houses

Demonic Possession

Slashers / Psycho Killers

Psychological Horror

Sci-Fi / Alien Horror

Monsters / Creatures

Folk Horror

Witchcraft

Cosmic / Lovecraftian Horror

Found Footage

Survival Horror

Body Horror