Joseph Sowa wrote:

>>Wes Crone wrote:
>>
>>>I do not think ANYONE can say that Mozart was more talented than Haydn.
>>>I don't like very much of Mozart's music and I certainly cannot think
>>>of anything in his entire works that display more talent than Haydn's
>>>Opus 76 quartets.  ...
>
>Mimi Ezust responded:
>
>>What are your criteria for "talent?"
>
>Well, the American Heritage dictionary describes talent as "1.  A marked
>innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.  2.  a.  Natural endowment
>or ability of a superior quality.  b.  [...]"
>
>I narrow that down to an ability to do sometime with skill and ease.  If
>you use that definition then Mozart beats Haydn (due to the ease part).

If we define innate to be equal to genetic then I believe that this
component of a person's intellectual makeup is very small and completely
overshadowed by environmental factors.  Indeed even genetic researchers
looking for an intelligence gene admit this to be so.

The reason why Haydn is like he is and Mozart is like he is are down to
their environments in my view.

Mozart, hot-housed by Leopold as a young child, was taught all about music
and composition.  I think that this was damaging but that is another story.
Haydn's father, however, was a wheelwright.  So although Haydn was exposed
to family singing sessions he did not receive any formal music education
at an early age.  It is true that he received more exposure whilst in St
Stephens choir in Vienna.  But, his compositional instruction came from
self teaching and if anything the choir master Reutter provided more
discourgement than praise.

There is, also, an environmental difference in terms of the hardship
suffered, between the two composers.  In the case of Mozart the hardship
suffered came later in his life whereas for Haydn it came early.

I would argue that these environmental factors are what define the
composers and also explain quite clearly why I prefer Haydn and the
remarks made about emotional content.

Contrary to Glenn Gould's view that Mozart became a bad composer later in
life I believe that he was getting better.  I ascribe this to the hardship
he began to suffer and the accumulation of life experience.

In contrast I think that Haydn in some ways mellowed later in life but did
not forget his earlier childhood.  Also, live shaping events including the
death of his friend Mozart help Haydn to maintain an emotional edge in his
music through to his death.

So as a generalisation I think we can say that Mozart started technical and
tended towards more emotion later in life.  Whereas Haydn started emotional
and became more technical later.

My own preference is for 'heart on sleeve' emotion rather than studious
technical music.  Hence my preference for Brahms first symphony and first
piano concert amongst his works and my love of the "grab you by the throat"
Bruckner symphonies.

I believe that music like any art form is not an academic exercise.  Rather
it should reflect man's feelings about the universe.

Of course other people on this list have a preference the other way round.
But I see no reason why either view should take precedence.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]