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.  This is, of course, my opinion I may be wrong.
>(Thanks Dennis Miller)

and Mimi Ezust wrote:

>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).
However, if you see talent as the finished product then, of course, I agree
with Wes that Haydn had more talent in the quartets than Mozart had any one
of his works.  About talent, in a week or so (I *think*), a friend of mine
will be posting his 6th symphony at http://welcome.to/maseg/, the finale of
which exhibits quite a lot of talent for one as young as he.  This is, of
course, my opinion and opinions generally can't be regarded as wrong--only
disagreed with.

Joseph Sowa
[log in to unmask]