Satoshi Akima wrote:

>One turns to Haydn with relief.  Here is a composer capable of presenting
>a terse, tightly argued, to-the-point, musical development-argument which
>is not padded out with beautiful but ultimately only semi-relevant
>grandiloquent flourishes.

Satoshi has highlighted a basic difference between Haydn and Mozart.
I agree with his comments on Haydn but not with his reference to Mozart.
The way I would put it is that Mozart tends to "luxuriate" in his music;
I don't look for terse/tight from Mozart, but I think he generally ends
up being as musically relevant as Haydn.  And, this luxury feature
Mozart provides is one of the reasons I like his music.  I find nothing
semi-relevant about it; the music is improved through its use and becomes
an intregal component.

Mozart to me is the smooth and flowing melody man with everything perfectly
in its place - all is well.  Sure, that's a generalization, but it happens
frequently enough that it's the perception I possess of his music.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]