I have absolutely no interest in who-is-the-greatest-composer games, and I
swore to god I was going to stay out of this, but I'll just have to hope
she forgives me...

Bob Draper wrote:

>Peter Goldstein
>
>>Mozart-my favorite topic!  ...
>
>My least favourite but what the heck!

What the heck?  If he's your least favorite topic, you sure expend a great
deal of effort, and waste a great deal of our time, populating the list
time and time again with your profoundly uninformed opinions on the matter.

>I see Mozart as (what we would call today) a hot-housed composer.

You are, of course, free to see Mozart in any light you choose.  However,
what we might call today hot-housing, in Haydn and Mozart's day was
standard practice if a child showed early talent, and if Bob knew anything
of the times in which Haydn and Mozart lived he would be aware of this.
Instead we are treated to 60s-style pop psychology analysis.

Haydn biographers agree on the basic facts.  Having shown remarkable
musical talent early on, Haydn left his birthplace and family at the age
of five, only returning rarely for short visits.  From day one of his stay
in Hainberg with Franck, his studies included intensive daily musical
instruction, so much so that this peasant boy who couldn't play a single
note on an instrument when he left home could recall later:

   "Our Almighty Father had endowed me with so much facility in music
   that even in my sixth year I stood up like a man and sang Masses in
   the church choir and could play a little on clavier and violin."
   - Haydn's Autobiography, 1778.

He progressed quickly and it soon became obvious that he would benefit from
more advanced training.  When he turned eight he was shipped off to study
at St.  Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna, a venue that offered one of the most
intensive musical educations of the day.  This hardly sounds like a normal
youth by any standards.  Though Haydn's instruction did not begin quite as
early as Mozart's, nor perhaps was it quite as all-consuming, Haydn's early
years were hardly those of a carefree child.

>I believe that this is Mozart's misfortune and explains why he was such
>a bland and boring composer.  You see he had no option but to assimulate
>(copy) other composer's styles (just like Mendellsohn did), the child's
>mind is just not developed enough to be creative.

Mozart was no more constrained by other composer's styles than was Haydn,
especially if we confine our discussion to the first 36 years.  And, I
think most would agree that Haydn's uniqueness was facilitated by his
relative isolation at the Estherhazy estate and the freedom to compose as
he wished, circumstances Mozart did not have the opportunity to experience.

>The composer (Mozart) grows to produce excellent counterpoint but is stuck
>forever with the styles of others.  Both no nothing else.  They have not
>be taught to think merely emulate and perform for adults.

Once again, Bob is free to believe whatever he likes, but this clearly
demonstrates either a nearly total lack of knowledge concerning Mozart's
work and influence, or he totally rejects the cumulative judgements of
musical geniuses over the past two centuries.  Either way, these beliefs
are clearly highly personal, and I'm not interested in turning this into a
religious discussion.

>Incidentally, there is a very high suicide rate in these child
>"prodigies" when they get older.

My goodness, how sensational.  Perhaps your talent for hyperbolic non
sequiturs is wasted here and you should be writing for the National
Enquirer.  Haydn though born into poverty and denied the benefits of
cosmopolitan exposure education in his first five years was obviously
still a musical prodigy and yet never attempted suicide as far as I am
aware.  Though Schumann showed no particular musical gifts at an early age
and received no special training until his teens, his relationship with
death was somewhat different.  How does this bear on the Mozart issue?

>Only when the brothers Haydn went to the church school in Vienna did they
>come across written music and then they were approaching puberty.  Joseph
>did not learn much in composition until his late teens.

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense.  You need to crack a book, Bob.
Any decent biography of Haydn will do.  Try Karl Geiringer, H.C. Robbins
Landon, Jens Peter Larsen, or just about anyone.  I'm sorry that I don't
have the time to type out supporting extracts, but every single account
I've read is at odds with your beliefs.

>But this is Joseph Haydn's advantage and explains why he bacame the
>greatest most creative composer of all in my opinion.

Should we genuflect?

>>But Glenn Miller is right to say that Mozart was a brilliant assimilator;
>
>Bears out my theory

No, it does not.  If you decide to read a little about this you'll find
that nearly every biographer has commented on Mozart's incredible ability
to assimilate the styles of others and almost immediately make them his
very own.  Beyond some juvenilia, Mozart never simply copied others, and if
you know the music of Mozart and his contemoraries - a perfectly factual
phrase by the way - it's not at all difficult to identify Mozart's voice.

>>But he's right to say Mozart is never less than competent-I think
>>it's a myth that his early works are bad.  ...
>
>Yes but you could say that about dozens of composers.  But their works
>aren't taking up valuable space in CDs stores!!

Ah, so here's the crux of it, mentioned time and time again.  Bob's club
doesn't get the attention he thinks it deserves, so it's time to lash out.

To me, Haydn was an absolute musical genius.  He was also a keen judge of
the quality of music, and I think he knew exactly what he meant when he
told Leopold:  "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son
is the greatest composer known to me."

Can't get much clearer than that.  Even Bob's idol doesn't agree with Bob
that Mozart is a waste of space.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/