Wes Crone wrote:

>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>>Whereas Haydn was less talented than Mozart, thus had less control, and
>ended up will less cerebral music.  (cerebral used loosely)
>
>I think this statement contradicts what Mr. Sowa writes later in his
>posting.  I believe he agreed with Mr. Rimas that compsers should not be
>rated as better or higher or lower than eachother.  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.  This is,
>of course, my opinion I may be wrong.(Thanks Dennis Miller)

I am not just directing this to Mr Sowa and Mr. Crone, but to everyone on
this thread [that's a given.  -Dave]:

What are your criteria for "talent?"

And, aparently, ANYONE can say anything he likes about any composer.
And ANYONE seems to be doing just that.  But without criteria it's as
meaningful as debating whether your weather is better than mine was a few
hundred years ago.  Like, uh, who cares?

Mimi Ezust, hoping for something more than vagueness.