Donald Satz wrote:

>I'd add a personal third consideration - I would be the loser if Beethoven
>had never existed, regardless of Mozart's life span.
>
>Mozart was not a "baby" Beethoven.  Each was highly distinct from one
>another.  Either that professor doesn't have much on the ball, or he was
>just trying to stimulate the brains of his students.  I'll give him the
>benefiit of the doubt and assume the latter.

It's a crass remark in any event.  Far truer to suggest that had Haydn
lived another 20 years we'd have had no need for a Beethoven.  Why? because
these two composers had far more in common than Mozart and Beethoven.

During the recent discussions about Mozart even his ardent supporters have
suggested that he worked within forms whereas Haydn was the inventor of
forms.  This is the view also expounded by Rosemary Hughes and HC
Robbins-Landon in their Haydn writings.

However, even I would not go so far as to suggest that Haydn could have
replaced Beethoven.  I think the two would have taken different routes.

Without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest I would venture to suggest that
this lecturer was merely reiterating, in an unthinking way, a variant on
the old view of the holy trilogy of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.  Is short
he was perpetuating a paradigm.

Don't be fooled by the fact that he is a proffessor.  As I mentioned in
the Norman Lebrect string, most often it's who you know that counts.

Bob Draper
Challenging Music's Paradigms
[log in to unmask]