# Genius is the defference between Mozart and Haydn



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Otherwise, pretty close.

That said, not all of the Haydn pieces are entirely intolerable. I just don't remember which ones.

Do you?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

And, oh yeah... Forget Salieri!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Yeah, Haydn was a pure genius, Mozart was just Broiler fed by his father's money hunger! 

/ptr


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. Looks like the influence of the Trolling Texans has reached you. Before proceeding, maybe you could define 'genius' so that it applies to M and not to H?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

No, no... Not trolling. (At least I don't think so.)

I always use the "genius" factor when trying to distinguish between the Mozart and the Haydn pieces on the radio.

It never fails.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I prefer Haydn's symphonies and string quartets over Mozart's. But Mozart's concertos and choral works over Haydn's.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> I prefer Haydn's symphonies and string quartets over Mozart's. But Mozart's concertos and choral works over Haydn's.


I agree ... and Mozart's operas, surely.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Haydn was on a payroll at some royal office, if I'm not mistaken. He could afford to write any crap - which he did.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Serge said:


> Haydn was on a payroll at some royal office, if I'm not mistaken. He could afford to write any crap - which he did.


Haydn got paid the same way they all did back then.

You *are* trolling.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

But Haydn was a genius too, obviously. Could his music still be so strong and brilliant today if he wasn't?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

GreenMamba said:


> Haydn got paid the same way they all did back then.
> 
> You *are* trolling.


Oh, so you like Haydn? That makes one of us.

Good for you!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

They are both great genius's. Mozart understood certain things about musical structure and the classical style better than just anyone else in history. His work ethic was pretty tremendous and you get the sense that he was way better educated than Haydn, his musical instincts honed to really fine point. Haydn had tremendous work ethic and a honed instinct for originality, raw imagination for what will come next in his pieces, in a more compartmentalized way than Mozart that is still very interesting to take it and sort of a breath of fresh air to me. Carl Philip Emanuel Bach was possibly Haydn's superior at all this, but Haydn's style is more refined and changed more, ultimately. And Haydn didn't have J.S. as a teacher.

That's my current shortened interpretation.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I've never had any trouble distinguishing between Haydn and Mozart on the radio. If it is full of annoying appoggiaturas, it's probably Mozart, unless it is late Mozart when he began to tone it down a bit and get really good.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

It's ok if you not like Haydn. But saying Mozart is better because he was a genius is like saying Mozart is better because he is better. It doesn't mean anything.

And saying Haydn is "crap" is trolling.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Kieran said:


> But Haydn was a genius too, obviously. Could his music still be so strong and brilliant today if he wasn't?


No. General public is a dope, whether classical or not. Who says his music is strong and brilliant? I know it's being played somewhat on the radio, but I also know it's no Mozart.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

GreenMamba said:


> It's ok if you not like Haydn. But saying Mozart is better because he was a genius is like saying Mozart is better because he is better. It doesn't mean anything.
> 
> And saying Haydn is "crap" is trolling.


Boring... Twice. (Otherwise wouldn't post.)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Serge said:


> No. General public is a dope, whether classical or not. Who says his music is strong and brilliant? I know it's being played somewhat on the radio, but I also know it's no Mozart.


Let your tastes on music have a little flexibility maybe? You don't have to I guess.

The entire composer's output and his place in history and other elements of musical style, is pretty massive in significance. Mozart's music hits all the "good stuff" pretty dead on, but Haydn's music and output is worth a tremendous amount too and is enjoyable to listen to. Also, who came first? Haydn did. And in my opinion, his music sustains repeated listenings really really well. Mozart's does too, in a different way. With Mozart, little details come out more and you realize how perfect it all is, with Haydn its how the piece is put together and what story it seems to tell.

What works are you basing this on though?

Few listening projects are more satisfying to me than getting to know large amounts of Haydn's work.

Then again, I like Dittersdorf and Kozeluch okay too.

Back to the original point of the thread. Haydn was certainly a genius. And not just a musical one, but as a person in general.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Serge said:


> I also know it's no Mozart.


No, it's Haydn - that's what makes it special...


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Back to the original point of the thread. Haydn was certainly a genius. And not just a musical one, but as a person in general.


Did Haydn have extramusical acomplishments of genius?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Kieran said:


> No, it's Haydn - that's what makes it special...


Of course, it's Haydn! It's like saying it's Salieri, God forbids!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Did Haydn have extramusical acomplishments of genius?


Well, teaching himself, teaching others, directing his own orchestra, writing pieces catered to his circumstances, and just being a good human being. Model musician in probably every sense of the word. And I think his creativity was so flexible and "for hire" but still with a highly consistent personality.

His string quartets and piano sonatas made great music available to the middle classes. He thought about his service to society in a very practical way, I think.

Or he just did it and it worked out that way.

And he certainly played a huge role in getting Beethoven going better.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Haydn appears to be a very good and likable man and let me commend him on that!

When history is right... it's right.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Serge said:


> Haydn appears to be very good and likable man and let me commend him on that!
> 
> When history is right... it's right.


Music of a good and likable man can be enjoyable. You just have to like that sort of music. One doesn't need to be hyper focused on the finer details of music and make it flower so beautifully. Its just as good in my opinion to be a great craftsmen. And really, his late Symphonies and String Quartets are music of the highest caliber, sincerely full of musical goodness, so try it out sometime when you aren't comparing him to Mozart. He learned from Mozart and Mozart learned from him. That says something.

Also, Mozart did have the advantage of having had Leopold as a father.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Serge said:


> Of course, it's Haydn! It's like saying it's Salieri, God forbids!


Hmm, maybe I should check out this Salieri guy too, he sounds great...


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Thanks clavichorder, you've been great!

What else can I say?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Maybe someone will post a thread, _"Define Genius"_ _and then state they only want TC members with an IQ of 140 or over to participate in that thread._

Have a nice day, unless you've made other plans


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Maybe someone will post a thread, _"Define Genius"_ _and then state they only want TC members with an IQ of 140 or over to participate in that thread._


Exactly. There'd only be me - and maybe you - participatin'...


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

IQ... What the *beep* is this about? I was talking about Mozart.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Serge said:


> Haydn appears to be a very good and likable man and let me commend him on that!
> 
> When history is right... it's right.


History seems to have marked out Haydn as a great composer, one of the three greats of his era. Well, as you say, when History is right, it's right...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Serge said:


> IQ... What the *beep* is this about? I was talking about Mozart.


The "beep" is about your hauling out the "Genius" topic as applied, or contrasted, between Mozart and Haydn.

Apart from the fact there is, no matter what, almost no really ever 'explaining the phenomenon' of Mozart, Genius is Genius, and there was not just one genius in all of music history, which is patently clear whether you've only studied music history or not.

Even that poor alcohol saturated liver about to fall out composer in your avatar was 'Genius' -- and "not even" a Haydn.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Oh, so the dude goes on defensive... I was just joking, Dude! Is your real name Walter?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Exactly. There'd only be me - and maybe you - participatin'...


*Oh! -- sob of relief -- thank God and Apollo I am not alone.*

Wait... "only be me - and maybe you" _That is fiercely difficult and complicated, give me a minute to work that out...._


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

C'mon dudes, and let's be serious here: Do you know the difference between Mozart and Haydn?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Serge said:


> Haydn was on a payroll at some royal office, if I'm not mistaken. He could afford to write any crap - which he did.


Thought you'd gone.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

No, no, still hanging around, I think.

Didn't think anybody would miss me though.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Serge said:


> No, no, still hanging around, I think.
> 
> Didn't think anybody would miss me though.


I think you are 100% correct on both accounts.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

The OP seems determined to raise hackles without defending his position in any way whatsoever, despite some attempts by other members to engage in the debate. It certainly seems like trolling to me.

Thread closed.


----------

