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?

This is typical of the partronising attitude to Haydn that I am avowed to
battle against.  We often find him described as a Master.  The implication
is, of course, that he is merely a skilled craftsman who does not have
inherent greatness.  I beg to differ folks.  To me he is "THE master", the
greatest.

How much Haydn have you heard is sounds as though you are a beginner.

I would say that there is more variation and quality in the London
symphonies alone, than in the whole of the Mozart symphonic ouvre.  When
you add in the other 90 odd other symphonies then there's enough character
to last anyone a lifetime.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]