ITT: Post objectively shit music that you still like

ITT: Post objectively shit music that you still like

Mozart is the classical version of elevator music

LOL at the idiocy

>Muh counterpoint

Yes

...

do i even need to say it

...

Mindless Self Indulgence is my guilty pleasure.

3+6=3

I LIKE TO MAKE MYSELF BELIEEEEEVE

Ke$ha makes me feel like a woman

System of a Down.

It feels dirty whenever I scroll past their albums.

seek help

Mozart is the classical version of The Beatles. Most people like and know him, but only a few truly understand what's going on under the hood.

He was pretty radical for his time, sometimes struggled to get work because of it.

I'm going into my last year in Music Composition at university and this is objectively false. You're a retard trying to look like you have insider knowledge.

Mozart is likely the most overrated composer of all time, had he not died young and written so many catchy melodies he would not nearly have the acclaim he has now.

Late stuff is good but the bulk of his shit is lowbrow garbage that recycles the same motifs, forms and chord progressions again and again. There's a reason he was largely considered a disappointment by the time he reached adulthood.

>You're a retard trying to look like you have insider knowledge.
I finished my music degree, majoring in composition about 4 years ago friendo.

Haven't they taught you about Mozart's supreme economy of material and unpredictability? or are they busy teaching your extended techniques rather than actual composition?

> unpredictability
> Mozart

Pick one, dead serious. And if we're talking about economy of material he's nothing compared to Haydn.

Mozart is hot trash out of 35-41, a handful of arias enjoyable for sheer camp value, and the Requiem. He even managed to rip off his entire fucking sound from the Mannheim School. If I'm listening to Mozart, I'm listening to the conductor, not the music.

I Suggest you study a few more Mozart scores, then you might understand.

Don't worry too much about this. Younger composers tend to write off Mozart as boring and predictable. Its only once you mature that you realize just good he was. All the very difficult things he did effortlessly.

The guy who transcribed Allegri's Miserere from memory after hearing it once might be worth looking into. Feel free to ignore him until later in your life though.

Out of interest, what kind of music do you plan to write with your composition degree? are you one of the modern crew looking for post-tonal / extended techniques and live electronics, or are you looking to write something with more traditional aesthetics?

>Mozart is hot trash out of 35-41
tbf the classical era wasn't very good except for the stuff that came at the end of the 18th century. this is true of haydn and beethoven as well
mozart's late piano concertos, mass in c minor, and the string quintet are excellent as well

...

>DES

That's some perfect steak

I actually went and looked up the differences between a roast and a steak. God damn it.

There are lots and lots of other composers who I would prefer to spend score study time to. The things you say are his strengths have been done many times over many times better by Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms and even Schoenberg.

As for the thing about Allegri, it can't be disputed that he was a musical prodigy with a huge amount of talent, Most likely he was a high functioning savant. But that doesn't make his music good or special. I would like to like him. Many people I respect the opinions of do, and at the top of his game at the end of his life he can take you to a sublime place now and then. But the vast majority is Haydn stripped of all semblance of taste and repackaged with more modern orchestration.

I try to combine modern aesthetics and palettes with some amount of formalised structure. I study a lot of 20th century neoclassicism in terms of form, pacing and content but I still want it to sound modern. A lot of new virtuosity or eclectisism jumps the shark but I don't think you can reflect a modern era with an antiquated tonal vocabulary.

> nothing good until end of the 18th century
> Beethoven 1 published 1801
> Haydn dead by 1809, most of his late stuff is boring oratorios

>I don't think you can reflect a modern era with an antiquated tonal vocabulary.
What if tonal /modal music is timeless though?

The harmonic series is inherent in nature. This series uses all the basic intervals like the octave, fifth, 3rds etc. There is some microtonal variation (compared to 12TET), but it seems that tonal music is natural, and thereby naturally absorbed and understood by humans.

Good luck to you at least. Being a composer aint easy. Just don't bow to anyone elses ideas, stay true to the music you want to write.

>the very first Beethoven composition was his first symphony
>Haydn did not write other things besides oratorios
woooowwww
Also every part of the Haydn oratorios except for the arias is fantastic

FFDP
first album is alright but its a gradual slope downward after that

FURTHER PROOF
Mozart didn't use counterpoint too much. That was Bach.

Just about every composer used similar motifs and chord progression throughout their careers. Singiling Mozart put for that is stupid.

...

anything of nirvana's famous songs

...