Iain Simons wrote:

>First and foremost, I must apologize for my inability to conform to the
>subscription protocol.  Yes, it is Iain Simons.  It's my automatic behavior
>that gets me in trouble--just ask my wife, Sandra; oops!  Now I've given it
>all away.

Thanks for clearing that up.

>To me, FJH represents the order and beauty that epitomizes the classical
>period.  No one can argue that FJH represents the gap, as it were, between
>the baroque and the purely classical.  And, as you stated, what do we
>compare this to?

I am very glad that you feel this way and appreciate the concilatory
nature of this post.


>Mozart, too, represents the classical period and the junior of FJH.  His
>opera compositions, I would argue, were beyond that of any classical
>composer.

I'll report when I've got round to listening to the 3 'masterpieces'.

>I find it difficult to argue in favor of Michael Haydn.  All one has to
>do is to listen and examine the compositional quality between the two
>composers.

I was being a little facetious here of course.  There are some grest works
by Michael Haydn:  symphony in D, divertemento, Requiem, Clarinet concerto
etc.  But, often particularly in symphonies his output falls a little below
that of his brother and WA Mozart.

The discrepency however is not as large as many people seem to think.
It is the whole way that people go over the top on a few that irritates
me.  We see the same thing in other fields.

>I must declare a certain degree of ignorance with respect to Hummel.
>Perhaps someone could enlighten me? I'm only familiar with a couple of
>his piano concertos and they could not even compare to WAM.

Well again I'm using exaggeration to make the point as we are talking a
different era here.  But Hummel is one of the composers that I feel is
seriously underrated.  Whenever I hear for the first time a work of his it
is highly original and successfull.  There must be a lot more out there to
be discovered.

Has anyone heard the Hummel opera on Arte Nova?

>Boccherini???? Perhaps you're right in certain respects.  He composed
>with verve and elegance.  He was much more redundant than WAM and tended
>to sound more baroque than classical, however.  As a composer of opera...I
>don't think I need to say more.

Got me again in a way.  This is really a different idiom.  So comparisoms
are difficult.  I'm still in the process of re-evaluating Bocherini,
upwards.

>To make a long story even longer: I agree that FJH was clearly a master,
>a title that can never be disputed and never be compared to WAM.  WAM was
>a genius as well.  He can not be compared to others and could never exceed
>the accomplishments of FJH.

Thank you Iain.  I think that the fact that you constantly praise Mozart's
operas shows that you have different priorities from me.  This of course
often explains many of the disputes aired here.  I still find most opera
to be a poor relation after symphonies, quartets, sonatas and masses.

>Sorry, I missed the comment regarding Leopold.  I would argue that the
>works of Leopold are clearly inferior to WAM's compositions, especially
>with respect to those works composed from the late 1770s and up.

Well that wasn't me but I have to agree here.

Leopold's Toy Symphony is one of the most diabolical works I have
ever heard. How cruel that this was once attributed to Haydn.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]