Bob Draper wrote:

>D. Stephen Heersink wrote:
>
>>Haydn doesn't have the indelible characteristic of a Mozart or Beethoven
>>which make it immediately known, but performed well, Haydn's symphonies
>>have brought me as much joy listening to a Master at his craft.
>
>I would be interested to know: exactly what do you consider the
>characteristic to be that Mozart and Beethoven have, that Haydn lacks?

I was recently listening to our classical music radio station and came
into the middle of a very pleasing symphony.  I knew it wasn't Beethoven
and it sounded more sophisticated than the early Mozart symphonies I
remember hearing but I didn't recognize it as one of his later ones.  By
elimination, I concluded that it must be by Haydn.  Listening on, and
somewhat mindful, of what I had been reading in posts here, I was caught
up on how masterful the work sounded (and I don't mean the term in any
patronizing way).  And then, it started sounding less so, I might almost
say, that it was sounding banal.  As best as I could describe it, it
sounded good, but not inspired.  Aha, I thought, it must be early Haydn.
The work was finally over and identified by the announcer.  It was
Schubert's First Symphony.

Ah well, the lad was only 16 when he wrote it.

Walter Meyer