# Mozart Symphonies or Haydn Symphonies?



## neoshredder

Which do you prefer?


----------



## Moira

Not much in it for me. 

Listened to Mozart's 1st Symphony yesterday. Not bad for a child who was probably nine years old when he wrote it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Haydn's 52nd is waaaay better than Mozart's 25th. I don't think Mozart does Sturm und Drang very well. Haydn is much better (but still nowhere near as good as CPE Bach!) although I do believe that Mozart's 41st is musically one of the most amazing symphonies written in the period.

This was a tough call, but I ended up voting for Haydn.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Moira said:


> Not much in it for me.
> 
> Listened to Mozart's 1st Symphony yesterday. Not bad for a child who was probably nine years old when he wrote it.


Listen to no. 7


----------



## jalex

As bodies of work, I hardly think there is much of a contest - Haydn for me.


----------



## brianwalker

Can't decide since I've listened to only around 1/10 of Haydn's symphonies but with what I've listened to I'm leaning towards Mozart but my tendency towards privileging quality over quantity is more extreme than most. From the 35th symphony onward I'd take any Mozart over Haydn for for 40 and 41 it's not even close. The last movement of the Jupiter is one of my favorite movements in any symphony, period.



jalex said:


> As bodies of work, I hardly think there is much of a contest - Haydn for me.


Which ones would you say are Haydn's best apart from the London ones? And what are your favorite movements in the London symphonies?

My biggest problem with Haydn's symphonies is that sometimes they're incredibly repetitive and there's an incredible amount of "filler" - I often get the sense that they're really longer than Mahler's.

Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the *first three minutes *apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.

It's just not something I return to very often.


----------



## NightHawk

Have been listening to the boxed set of Haydn Complete Symphonies with Antal Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica. *Bliss*! Hands down, Haydn all the way for me. Same with the string quartets, and piano sonatas, Haydn and Haydn.


----------



## brianwalker

This thread is not turning out how I expected it would turn out.

Edit: Nvm just saw the poll.


----------



## NightHawk

The 'Paris' Symphonies, (written for a large, virtuose orchestra) No.s 82-87 are fantastic - along with the 'Londons', but I have listened to all 104 of them now, and though I didn't keep a journal, I remember being knocked out with the evidence of his genius in No. 1 in G. As far as repetitiveness, - he did like and practiced monothematicism in his Sonata Allegro expositions a lot (45, 84, 94, 103 and 104 to mention just a few), but it is his reinvention of the same material that has been marveled over forever. He also often used the consequent phrase of the 'A' theme as the material for his 'new thematic' group in the new key in his first movements, so there is tremendous cohesiveness. But, hey, Mozart is, well, Mozart, and I can't nor would nay say someone who responded more deeply to M than H.  I'm going to listen to No. 103 and see if I can pick up on what you were getting at in your post. Cheers.

and, btw: Mozart's No.s 38, 39, 40 and 41 are brilliant works.



brianwalker said:


> Can't decide since I've listened to only around 1/10 of Haydn's symphonies but with what I've listened to I'm leaning towards Mozart but my tendency towards privileging quality over quantity is more extreme than most. From the 35th symphony onward I'd take any Mozart over Haydn for for 40 and 41 it's not even close. The last movement of the Jupiter is one of my favorite movements in any symphony, period.
> 
> Which ones would you say are Haydn's best apart from the London ones? And what are your favorite movements in the London symphonies?
> 
> My biggest problem with Haydn's symphonies is that sometimes they're incredibly repetitive and there's an incredible amount of "filler" - I often get the sense that they're really longer than Mahler's.
> 
> Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the *first three minutes *apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.
> 
> It's just not something I return to very often.


----------



## Arsakes

Despite half of Haydn symphonies don't look special and interesting, still Haydn has better symphonies in numbers. Sorry Mozart, I only like your 25th, 36th, 40th and 41th symphonies. Hayden's English symphonies are enough to beat Mozart.


----------



## NightHawk

The marking for the Haydn Symphony No. 103 in Eb is 1. Adagio--Allegro con spirito. The 'three minute mark' of Sym No. 103 is the beginning of the EXPOSITION (Allegro con spirito) - the foregoing three minutes are the slow introduction (Adagio), which are evident in some symphonies of Mozart (No. 39 is a good example) and of Beethoven (No. 7 has a fantastic and long slow intro). The material of these slow intros is a nod to Corelli* who added a slow movement to the beginning of his sonatas that were to be played in church (_Sonatas da chiesa_) as a mark of seriousness. In the Classic era, this 'Corelli' slow movement was shortened and attached to the beginning of 'some' symphony first movements. The slow intro in all such works serves to set up the emphatic first thematic group of the Exposition. On the other hand many Classical symphonies start directly with the Expo, consider Mozart No. 40, or Beethoven No. 5.

* re Corelli - perhaps conjectural, but many theorists support the view



brianwalker said:


> Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the *first three minutes *apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.
> 
> It's just not something I return to very often.


----------



## NightHawk

Look at the numbers, not the bars - though I'll be surprised if Haydn prevails as his corpus of symphonies is so huge and Mozart's fame in opera, concerto, string quintet and mass so eclipses Haydn that many will vote Mozart w/o really listening to Haydn's symphonies (or String 4tets) - I hasten to add that I am guilty of this when it comes to the on-going TC Lists of Recommended Works. I sort of feel (and this is silly) that since I've been listening to classical music with unabated passion for 50 years, if I haven't heard of a composer they couldn't _possibly_ be any good. Yeah, it's stupid.



brianwalker said:


> This thread is not turning out how I expected it would turn out.
> 
> Edit: Nvm just saw the poll.


----------



## jalex

brianwalker said:


> Which ones would you say are Haydn's best apart from the London ones? And what are your favorite movements in the London symphonies?


I haven't listened to all of them but I've found them to be overall a remarkably consistent body of work. An overview of personal highlights of the pre-London works might consist of #6-8, 22, 44-48, 52, 60 (for the hilarious finale), 88, 91, 92 and the Paris symphonies



> My biggest problem with Haydn's symphonies is that sometimes they're incredibly repetitive and there's an incredible amount of "filler" - I often get the sense that they're really longer than Mahler's.


Where is the repetitiveness and the filler?



> Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the *first three minutes *apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.


It's a lengthy slow introduction, Classical era composers often used these in his symphonies (one might equally ask what the 'point' of the three minute long introduction to Beethoven's symphony #2 is, for instance, though most listeners agree that it's something of a masterpiece). As far as it's 'point' goes, I find it enough that it's an extremely effective way to begin a symphony - a lengthy period of tenseness dispelled by the gaiety which follows - whatever the historical roots. The return of that theme in the middle of the movement is a stroke of dramatic genius, prefiguring the finale of Beethoven #5 though to obviously different effect. but I can't see any more reason to object to an unrelated slow introduction than, say, to the trio of a minuet and trio, or even the pre-Beethoven symphonic form itself (which after all is almost always a collection of four thematically unrelated movements). The emotional arc is still satisfying.


----------



## brianwalker

NightHawk said:


> Look at the numbers, not the bars - though I'll be surprised if Haydn prevails as his corpus of symphonies is so huge and Mozart's fame in opera, concerto, string quintet and mass so eclipses Haydn that many will vote Mozart w/o really listening to Haydn's symphonies (or String 4tets) - I hasten to add that I am guilty of this when it comes to the on-going TC Lists of Recommended Works. I sort of feel (and this is silly) that since I've been listening to classical music with unabated passion for 50 years, if I haven't heard of a composer they couldn't _possibly_ be any good. Yeah, it's stupid.


I realize this so I was hesitant to vote. Haydn's symphonies aren't so flashy that they invite you in at the first listen and I know I've underrated them in the past.



jalex said:


> Where is the repetitiveness and the filler?


Repetitiveness is the wrong word; the introduction was just extremely boring... His symphonies in atmosphere are repetitive though. I'm not fond of introductions in general and although has it up to the 39th symphony he makes it more palatable than Haydn in my evaluation.



> It's a lengthy slow introduction, Classical era composers often used these in his symphonies (one Hermight equally ask what the 'point' of the three minute long introduction to Beethoven's symphony #2 is, for instance, though most listeners agree that it's something of a masterpiece).


The thing is that Beethoven's 2nd is one of those works that almost fall straight to the bottom in the ranking of Beethoven's symphonies and almost never get packaged on a single disc, etc. You can say "well, that's because Beethoven's other symphonies are so good" but that doesn't mean that it can't be popular relative to the symphonies of other composers.



> As far as it's 'point' goes, I find it enough that it's an extremely effective way to begin a symphony - a lengthy period of tenseness dispelled by the gaiety which follows - whatever the historical roots. The return of that theme in the middle of the movement is a stroke of dramatic genius, prefiguring the finale of Beethoven #5 though to obviously different effect. but I can't see any more reason to object to an unrelated slow introduction than, say, to the trio of a minuet and trio, or even the pre-Beethoven symphonic form itself (which after all is almost always a collection of four thematically unrelated movements). The emotional arc is still satisfying.


You don't have any urge for the 103 to be a tad shorter? Returning to the sandwich metaphor, I just think that there isn't enough "meat".

I just don't love any of Haydn's symphonies I guess.

Jalex, if you had to rank, by movement (please, indulge me) the best 12 movements in Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies (*in a single column)* i.e. as a single body of work, picking however many of either composer you want (not 6/6, could be 4/8, 10/2) how would you do it?

I will re-listen to the London symphonies and listen to the Paris and the ones you've just mentioned to make up my own list.



NightHawk said:


> Have been listening to the boxed set of Haydn Complete Symphonies with Antal Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica. *Bliss*! Hands down, Haydn all the way for me. Same with the string quartets, and piano sonatas, Haydn and Haydn.


Piano sonatas? Hands down for the piano sonatas?


----------



## Kieran

I've never heard it said that haydn had any symphs that were as brilliant, powerful and enduring as Mozart's final 3. Heck, make that his final 6.

These guys are playing in different divisions. haydn was a great composer and the father of the symphony, but Mozart operated on a whole nother level...


----------



## gr8gunz

Kieran said:


> These guys are playing in different divisions. haydn was a great composer and the father of the symphony, but Mozart operated on a whole nother level...


Indeed, as did Beethoven. Aside from his first symphony comparing Beethoven with Haydn or Mozart is a ridiculous undertaking. I choose Mozart as I believe he was just further along on the evolutionary scale.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart operated on a whole nother level...

At his best, this may be true. I can't think of any Haydn symphony that rivals Mozart's 40 or 41... but then again Haydn's reputation may suffer from too much of a good thing. Mozart has a handful and a half of symphonies that I would think of as essential. Haydn has dozens. The same holds true when speaking of the string quartets. I would also be tempted to give Haydn the upper hand when it comes to choral work. Yes Mozart has the "Coronation" Mass, the Great Mass in C-minor, the _Requiem_, the _Exsultate, jubilate_... but Haydn has an entire slew of great masses, the Creation, the Seasons, the choral version of The Seven Last Words, etc... While overall I think Mozart is the greater composer, I don't think the gap between the two is quite as large as many imagine.


----------



## brianwalker

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart operated on a whole nother level...
> 
> At his best, this may be true. I can't think of any Haydn symphony that rivals Mozart's 40 or 41... but then again Haydn's reputation may suffer from too much of a good thing. Mozart has a handful and a half of symphonies that I would think of as essential. Haydn has dozens. The same holds true when speaking of the string quartets. I would also be tempted to give Haydn the upper hand when it comes to choral work. Yes Mozart has the "Coronation" Mass, the Great Mass in C-minor, the _Requiem_, the _Exsultate, jubilate_... but Haydn has an entire slew of great masses, the Creation, the Seasons, the choral version of The Seven Last Words, etc... While overall I think Mozart is the greater composer, I don't think the gap between the two is quite as large as many imagine.


So Haydn has I. a better symphonic body of work than Mozart II. better choral body of work III. I'm just assuming that you think that Haydn's string quartets are also better (this is the general consensus).

What makes Mozart the better composer in your eyes and what makes him more popular with the general public and the critics? Why is Mozart so highly esteemed when Haydn is better than him in the two areas where's he's especially famous (symphonies and choral work)?

Opera is a developed taste; his piano sonatas are, well, not of great importance. His string quintets aren't particularly well known and his Violin Concertos are, well, often derided as trivial (he wrote all five when he was a teenager). Is it the Eine Kleine Nachtmusik? That can't have the critics fooled.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart clearly dominates when it comes to the piano concertos. Indeed, I would be hard-put to think of any other composer who might surpass him considering this body of work as a whole. He is also far ahead the greater composer when it comes to opera and concert arias. He composed seven major opera, with four towering works that stand among the greatest and most influential work in the genre. The fact that the general public probably doesn't like opera is irrelevant for the simple reason that the opinions of the general public with regard to classical music are largely irrelevant. If you are citing the opinions of the general public then you must believe that Wagner and Verdi and Puccini are all irrelevant... because they virtaully composed nothing but opera... and Mahler is also irrelevant, Bruckner non-existent, and Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_, Pachelbel's _Canon_ and Strauss Blue Danube are the greatest works of music of all time. If Mozart's last few symphonies are popular with the general public it is in part because these few works with short, catchy tunes are frequently played. Mahler is largely unknown because the movements are too broad and sprawling... there's no catchy tune to immediately glom onto. In the case of Haydn... as I stated above... there are too many for the novice to begin to develop a grasp of these.

Beyond the piano concertos and the operas and concert arias, Mozart also has more than a few masterful compositions in any number of other genre: the clarinet quintet, the clarinet concerto, the concerto for flute and harp, the four horn concertos, Sinfonia concertante, K 364, there are the late violin sonatas, the string quintets (mostly late mature works), the flute quartets, the trio for clarinet, cello and piano (Kegelstatt Trio), the piano quartets, the serenades...certainly the major serenades such as "Serenata Notturna", K. 239, "Haffner", K. 250, "Posthorn", K. 320, "Gran Partita", K. 361... and yes, "Eine kleine Nachtmusik", K. 525, and even the marvelous late works for glass harmonica.

Haydn produced a marvelous array of symphonies, string quartets, and choral music that are all far larger than the major works produced by Mozart within those genre. Mozart's greatest achievements within any one of those genre, however, are quite likely greater than anything achieved by Haydn. Beyond this Mozart produced an array of brilliant compositions within nearly every genre imaginable. His achievements with the piano concerto and opera are nearly unrivaled by any composer. It is for this reason that Mozart stands above Haydn.


----------



## Sid James

Hard to compare. They're pretty different.

This is how I see it, and some writer I read said it too.

Mozart's instrumental music mirrors his talent at writing opera & vocal music. If you can imagine it with a vocal, or being kind of hummable like a song, then that's how Mozart composed his symphonies, concertos, chamber music, etc.

With Haydn, he thinks more instrumentally. His melodies have that kind of feel for me. Even his choral works, and I know _The Creation_ the most, the way he paints pictures of the creation story - eg. the formation of the seas and earth, the portraits of different animals and finally the garden of Eden - I so much enjoy the way he writes for that small orchestra. I focused on the mood, images, vibe he creates. His melodies come across as less memorable than those things, but the things he does with eg. rhythm and orchestral colour are unique. He's more visual for me, his music gives me many images. Mozart is more emotional and song like.

Both respected eachother and where influenced by eachother though, so it is at times hard to separate their musics. However *I like Haydn the most, in terms of the question re his symphonies. *In terms of the symphony, Haydn was extremely innovative, foreshadowing in embryonic form a large amount of Beethoven's innovations to come later. Here are my favourites:

- _*#31 "Hornsignal"* _- First symphony to have solos of many instruments, incl. flute & double bass. Comes across as a cross between concerto grosso & symphony.

- _*#49 "La Passione"*_ - Employs the church sonata form - slow-fast-slow-fast - and a very dark work for the time. Haydn on speed, high octane. Another innovative work.

-_* London symphonies*_, 12 symphonies up to #104 - my favorites incl.:

- _*#94 "Surprise*"_ & _*#101 "Clock"* _- for their humour. In the _*Surprise*_, a tune reminiscent of _twinkle twinkle little star_ turns into some of the best musical jokes in the canon, it's funny every time. In the _*Clock*_, the tick-tock of one of the movements (hence the nickname) was taken up and refashioned by Prokofiev in his _Sym.#1 'Classical' _in early 20th century.

*#99 *- Amazing rhythms in the final movement, pretty vigorous and also very sudden tempo changes put into fugal form, quite fragmented for the time.

*#100 "Military" *- Turkish style drumming and vivid percussive effects for the time. The Turk kind of thing was in vogue with Haydn but also Mozart. Also reflecting Turks attempt to expand Ottoman Empire further into Europe.

_*#103, the Drumroll*_ - first time something was bought back at the end of the symphony from the opening movement - in this case, the drumroll!

_*#104 "London"* -_ the final movement a picture in sound of the city in the late 18th century - bagpipers in the street (those drones), bells tolling, music with a country/folk feel, imaging the city's rural surrounds.


----------



## kv466

I actually find myself listening to the Haydn symphonies more often but every time I hear one of my favorite Mozart symphonies done by Marriner and The Academy I am reminded why I love the Mozart so much. Also, I guess I listen to the Haydn a lot more since there are a lot more of them and because I am already quite familiar with all the Mozart. Nonetheless, whenever I hear NM&TAoSt.MiTF perform the glorious g-minor 25th, kv183...then, the answer is Mozart's.


----------



## gr8gunz

Arsakes said:


> Despite half of Haydn symphonies don't look special and interesting, still Haydn has better symphonies in numbers. Sorry Mozart, I only like your 25th, 36th, 40th and 41th symphonies. Hayden's English symphonies are enough to beat Mozart.


You don't like 29 or 35??? FOR SHAME!!


----------



## StevenOBrien

Haydn's symphonies are VERY enjoyable (#88 being a personal favorite), but I connect with Mozart's music in general on a much higher level, so he gets my vote here. Haydn's symphonies I can take in very easily and pleasurably, but Mozart's just absorb me in an indescribable way.


----------



## tdc

gr8gunz said:


> You don't like 29 or 35??? FOR SHAME!!


What about # 38?! You TwO FOR SHAME!!

 

I'm surprised, thought Mozart would take this easily...makes me think there is still something I am not getting with Haydn. He seems enjoyable, but imo lacks the artistic flair of Mozart, doesn't seem to take the creative risks or push me into that 'deeper zone'.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

tdc said:


> gr8gunz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like 29 or 35??? FOR SHAME!!
> 
> 
> 
> What about # 38?! You TwO FOR SHAME!!
Click to expand...

What about no. 7 and "Odense Symphony?" You THREE FOR SHAME!


----------



## Arsakes

Also Haydn's String Quartets and most of his Piano works are lovely. 
Mozart's Requiem is one of the best of all time, I've only listened to the 'Die Schöpfung' and 'The Seasons' from haydn and they're very good also.

In symphonies I like many of Haydn symphonies...
All 12 London Symphonies, No. 85 'La Reine', 69 'Laudon', 63 'La Roxelane', 60 'Il Distratto', 53 'L'Imperiale', 49 'La Passione' 48 'Maria Theresa', 44 'Trauersymphonie', 40, 39, 38 'Echo', 31 'Hornsignal', 26 'Lamentatione', 22 'Der Philosoph', 2 and 1.


----------



## Alydon

An interesting subject - I would say Haydn for symphonies, but Mozart for concertos. There is something of great character and occassion in both the Paris & London symphonies from Haydn which touch a deep humane level. Saying that, Mozart's last 3 and nos 25, 29, 35 & 38 are among my favourvite pieces. - always feel Mozart was up in the heavens sometimes but Haydn is down here with and as a friend pointed out there is nothing better to listen to when down than a good set of the London symphonies


----------



## afterpostjack

I like Haydn's far better. The moods and emotions present in his symphonies are not found anywhere in any Mozart symphony that I've listened to. In general, I find Haydn to be the superior composer of the two. I guess Mozart wrote better operas (Haydn didn't write any?) as well as concerti, but those aren't exactly my cup of tea, except for some occasional listens to Mozart's late piano concerti.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Nuukeer said:


> I like Haydn's far better. The moods and emotions present in his symphonies are not found anywhere in any Mozart symphony that I've listened to. In general, I find Haydn to be the superior composer of the two. I guess Mozart wrote better operas (Haydn didn't write any?) as well as concerti, but those aren't exactly my cup of tea, except for some occasional listens to Mozart's late piano concerti.


Haydn wrote operas. Many are now lost though and the surviving ones hardly get performed. I've only heard one of Haydn'd operas and I didn't think it was really anything special.


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Haydn wrote operas. Many are now lost though and the surviving ones hardly get performed. I've only heard one of Haydn'd operas and I didn't think it was really anything special.


Antal Dorati recorded a large amount of Haydn's operas. Saw a big boxed set a while back. They are out there but will unlikely to become as popular as Mozart's operas. A Haydn opera was produced live and recorded in recent years by_ Pinchgut Opera,_ an Aussie opera company specialising in wig operas. So he is getting some traction & exposure at least.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sid James said:


> Antal Dorati recorded a large amount of Haydn's operas. Saw a big boxed set a while back. They are out there but will unlikely to become as popular as Mozart's operas. A Haydn opera was produced live and recorded in recent years by_ Pinchgut Opera,_ an Aussie opera company specialising in wig operas. So he is getting some traction & exposure at least.


That _Pinchgut Opera_ production was the one I heard. It was broadcast on the radio, that's how I heard it!


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That _Pinchgut Opera_ production was the one I heard. It was broadcast on the radio, that's how I heard it!


Yes, & they do one wig opera per year, usually a rarer one. Eg. apart from that Haydn opera, they have done a rare Vivaldi opera in recent years, as well as others by Handel and I think Monteverdi. Some excellent musicians are part of this group, but they only come together once a year for this type of thing.


----------



## IBMchicago

First time posting  I think Haydn is, perhaps, "technically" better...maybe even a little more abstract (prior to his more popular style in London). But I agree with another poster that Mozart is generally better at pushing a listener "into that zone." I know it's been overstated, but Mozart's symphonies 25+ seem much more "ethereal" (and I honestly wish that I could define this better). I voted Mozart, but I agree it's a toss-up.


----------



## obwan

I voted for Mozart, though I admit he is my favorite composer and I'm not all that familiar with Haydn's symphonies. But what I can tell you to justify my vote is this.... Haydn just simply didn't have the orchestrating skills as did mozart. Not to mention that most of Haydn's symphonies are nothing more than glorified string quintetts, just with a large string section and a couple of winds thrown in. I was listening to the 'Surprise' symphony quite recently and I thought to myself wow this is neat, its been so long since I've heard it and it still has this magic 'childlike feel' to it that only a very skilled composer could accomplish... but then the flutes came in.... what! no... that don't sound right.... it should be on oboes or something, but not flutes! not at that part! not right there! 

When mozart included any wind in his orchestral music, it was for very good reason. that part could not be played by any other instrument or it simply wouldn't work. This goes for his symphonies as well as for his operas, (e.g. in Don Giovanni he called for trombones even though they only played in 2 scenes. take those trombones out and youve ruined the opera. Mozart surpasses even Beethoven in this regard, in my mind unquestionably. e.g. Beethoven calls for Trombones in his 5th symphony only in the 4th movement, but could you loose the T-bones and not miss anything? Absolutely. 

Face it, Quality not Quantity.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I have listened to the London symphonies - plus quite a lot of the earlier Haydn symphonies. I don't really see how you can find anything in Haydn that has the depth and power of say - the intro to symphony no 38 - or the fugal finale of no 41 - or even the sublime beautiful simplicity of no 29. I admit that as a body of work 104 symphonies is a staggering achievement and the quality is more consistent that Mozart's 41 - but the sublime highs of Mozart's best 7 (25,29,36,38,39,40,41) score the vote for me.


----------



## Webernite

Mozart Symphony No. 25 is overrated...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Haydn himself did not rate himself on Mozart's level. Previn said it but not sure where he got that from.
Let's also remember that Haydn lived to 90 ish and Mozart just 36. Pity it were not the other way around.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

Haydn's symphonies are much easier to listen to in my opinion. I could listen to Haydn's symphonies any day but I don't often feel like listening to the symphonies of Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

TrazomGangflow said:


> Haydn's symphonies are much easier to listen to in my opinion. I could listen to Haydn's symphonies any day but I don't often feel like listening to the symphonies of Mozart.


And Vivaldi is even easier to listen to than Haydn.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The majority of Haydn's were written and premiered for his super wealthy and powerful sole employer behind private closed doors, except for the later symphonies for publication, Paris and London. But the majority of Mozart's were for the concert hall and or a larger private audience. I enjoy them both. Classical music would be incomplete without them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Haydn's Sturm und Drang style beats Mozart's 25th by about 75829581505814235286.9989 miles.


----------



## PlaySalieri

But Mozart's 25th is sooooooo famous.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

But Mozart's 25th is sooooooo overrated.


----------



## PlaySalieri

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> But Mozart's 25th is sooooooo overrated.


I don't think so - it is justly famous - the first movement is probably one of the best he ever wrote (and used at the opening of Amadeus to great effect) - and nearly all the great conductors of the 20th C recorded and re-recorded it and did rate it even if you don't.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

stomanek said:


> And Vivaldi is even easier to listen to than Haydn.


Haydn and Vivaldi are not a good comparison. Haydn easily outranks Vivaldi in many fields of composition. Haydn is more influential (not that being influential makes you a good composer) and is much more of a varied composer.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

stomanek said:


> I don't think so - it is justly famous - the first movement is probably one of the best he ever wrote (and used at the opening of Amadeus to great effect) - and nearly all the great conductors of the 20th C recorded and re-recorded it and did rate it even if you don't.


Well, it was Mozart's best effort at the Sturm und Drang style in symphonic writing, and I don't think it's really as good as a lot of Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies. It's a good symphony and I do like it, but it's a very typical symphony of the time and there is nothing that special about it.


----------



## trazom

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well, it was Mozart's best effort at the Sturm und Drang style in symphonic writing, and I don't think it's really as good as a lot of Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies. It's a good symphony and I do like it, but it's a very typical symphony of the time and there is nothing that special about it.


Mozart's symphony #25 sounds much less 'of the time' than Haydn's symphony of the same key: There's freer chromaticism and more rhythmic variation, especially in the first and last movements.


----------



## presto

Kieran said:


> These guys are playing in different divisions. haydn was a great composer and the father of the symphony, but Mozart operated on a whole nother level...


Totally agree, Haydn's are entertaining and clever, Mozart's are all that but with more depth.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

trazom said:


> Mozart's symphony #25 sounds much less 'of the time' than Haydn's symphony of the same key: There's freer chromaticism and more rhythmic variation, especially in the first and last movements.


That was just his own style anyway. There was more chromaticism in Bach's later works than there are in that symphony.


----------



## Kieran

Can't believe that Wolfgang had his powder-pink wig handed back to him in this poll: 33 out 59 voters think Haydn is as good, or better, at composing symphs. 

Haydn was obviously a great composer, and it would be arrogant of me to attempt to criticise him in any way, but to my ears it's evident that Mozart's music reached through time more effectively, contains more power and depth, more stirring invention and greater emotional expression. Where Haydn scores heavily - to me - is his irrefutable role as father of both the symphony and string quartet - and also as composer of over 100 symphs, and an obvious influence on both Mozart and Beethoven, even down to the choice of keys used in Mozarts final trilogy of quartets in 1788.

None of this is insignificant, by the way; it's testimony to Papa Haydn's great invention and mastery of form. But Mozart moved in advance of this, and to me, composed at a higher level, and with greater genius. He saw 'what was' and improved it, as is the way of these things. But he improved it to such an extent as to be the definitive 'classical composer' of symphs, paving the way for the broader meanderings of Beethoven and the Romantics.

And Mozart, in his brief existence, composed roughly 60 symphonies, all told, not just the 40 canonical ones (#37 not being his own). Granted, most of these are the infant ones, but what an exceptional infant he was...:tiphat:


----------



## PlaySalieri

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well, it was Mozart's best effort at the Sturm und Drang style in symphonic writing, and I don't think it's really as good as a lot of Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies. It's a good symphony and I do like it, but it's a very typical symphony of the time and there is nothing that special about it.


We will have to agree to disagree. I have heard plenty of other symphonies of that time and can't find anything remotely like it - or as good. I was recommended to listen to CPE Bach G minor as something better - and could not find it anywhere near on the same level. I think M was 18 when he wrote it.


----------



## ZombieBeethoven

I have listened to more Mozart than Haydn this month, so I will clearly have to choose Mozart. However, last year I listened to more Haydn. So I must choose Haydn. Wait, according to Wikipedia, Haydn's nose was disfigured by polypus. I have not investigated what polypus is, but I must assume that in the future any listening to Haydn's symphonies will be marred by visualizations of his unsightly proboscis. Clearly, I must choose Mozart. And yet, Mozart died too soon. The memory of his premature death will surely taint my future appreciation of his work... 
Why, oh, why did you have to ask which symphonies do I prefer, not which are the greatest? A much easier question to answer definatively.


----------



## neoshredder

I'm leaning towards Mozart as well. Sorry Haydn fans. It seems like Haydn has a great first movement and the rest drags a little. I don't think Haydn's biggest strength is his symphonies though he wrote a ton of them. His Trumpet Concerto was awesome. Also I liked his String Quartets.


----------



## Ramako

I'm sorry but I don't like Mozart's symphonies in general much at all. Even some of the ones generally called great I find really quite dull and very long. 39 and 40 hold him as a symphonist for me by themselves. I much prefer his chamber music, which gives more meaning to his more complex devices, which can seem overly academic in the symphonies.

Actually, to be honest I think I would prefer Haydn's symphonies even if he stopped writing them after 45.


----------



## Renaissance

I can't stand the typical symphony from Classical Era, but if I have to choose, I choose Haydn. There are some symphonies I like, especially #7, #22, #91, #101, #104. I find Mozart really boring. I am saying he is not a good composer or a gifted musician, but in my opinion he failed to express any emotion in his symphonies. His chamber music is good though...but even on that matter I still prefer Haydn. Mozart is simply too mechanical for me, I can't find any track of passion in many of his works. But thanks god he wrote the Requiem. I absolve him from his sins for that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Renaissance said:


> I can't stand the typical symphony from Classical Era, but if I have to choose, I choose Haydn. There are some symphonies I like, especially #7, #22, #91, #101, #104. I find Mozart really boring. I am saying he is not a good composer or a gifted musician, but in my opinion he failed to express any emotion in his symphonies. His chamber music is good though...but even on that matter I still prefer Haydn. Mozart is simply too mechanical for me, I can't find any track of passion in many of his works. But thanks god he wrote the Requiem. I absolve him from his sins for that.


That's funny - I know one professor at the royal academy of music in London who says haydn's music is intellectual - Mozart is emotion.

How can you not find emotion in the g minor? Even those movements which you think are emotionless have incredible energy and rythm - like the haffner sy for example. There is invariable something superlative - in sy 29 - I agree that emotion is absent - but beauty of sound fills every bar. What you call mechanical i call mastery of musical architecture - when you understand it - it is a wonder to hear - the way all the instruments behave in relation to each other - perfect order.


----------



## Sonata

To my ear, they are about the same. To be honest, classical era symphonies don't do much for me at this point. I really enjoy Haydn's piano sonatas, divertimenti, and cello concertos. My favorite Mozart music includes his concertos in general and his opera work. Overall I would take Mozart over Haydn, but I find Haydn appealing and will continue to explore his music to a greater extent than I have so far.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

stomanek said:


> That's funny - I know one professor at the royal academy of music in London who says haydn's music is intellectual - Mozart is emotion.
> 
> How can you not find emotion in the g minor? Even those movements which you think are emotionless have incredible energy and rythm - like the haffner sy for example. There is invariable something superlative - in sy 29 - I agree that emotion is absent - but beauty of sound fills every bar. What you call mechanical i call mastery of musical architecture - when you understand it - it is a wonder to hear - the way all the instruments behave in relation to each other - perfect order.


Your opinion is *WRONG.*


----------



## elgar's ghost

Mozart had written all of his symphonies bar the final five or six by the time he was 26/27. Haydn didn't even compose his first until he was about the same age so I think the benefits of maturity reflects on Haydn's solid high standard, especially from that point on when he started to feel shackled by his musical obligations to the House of Esterhazy and put a little more 'spike' into some of his works. However, Haydn didn't really move on much after that - his 'London' symphonies, fine as they are, wouldn't really have sounded out of place 15 or so years earlier whereas Mozart with his final ones seemed to be striving to soar to new heights (perhaps knowing that he wouldn't get much - if any - money for them). 

This isn't a put-down of Haydn as I appreciate it was mainly his spade work that helped realise the symphony's potential rather than it being just another hangover from the Baroque era, but because Haydn was by then set in his ways and presumably handsomely rewarded for his later symphonies maybe he didn't feel he needed to rock the boat that had sailed untroubled for so long. Mozart, on the other hand, may have felt that he had less to lose by having nothing to gain in the first place!


----------



## PlaySalieri

elgars ghost said:


> Mozart had written all of his symphonies bar the final five or six by the time he was 26/27. Haydn didn't even compose his first until he was about the same age so I think the benefits of maturity reflects on Haydn's solid high standard, especially from that point on when he started to feel shackled by his musical obligations to the House of Esterhazy and put a little more 'spike' into some of his works. However, Haydn didn't really move on much after that - his 'London' symphonies, fine as they are, wouldn't really have sounded out of place 15 or so years earlier whereas Mozart with his final ones seemed to be striving to soar to new heights (perhaps knowing that he wouldn't get much - if any - money for them).
> 
> This isn't a put-down of Haydn as I appreciate it was mainly his spade work that helped realise the symphony's potential rather than it being just another hangover from the Baroque era, but because Haydn was by then set in his ways and presumably handsomely rewarded for his later symphonies maybe he didn't feel he needed to rock the boat that had sailed untroubled for so long. Mozart, on the other hand, may have felt that he had less to lose by having nothing to gain in the first place!


That's fair comment.
I admit that all Haydn's 104 are at least good - some are great. I think he did move on with the later London symphonies - but he did not take the quantumn leap that M took from after sy 36 - the level he achieved from no 38 on was nearly as incredible as that made by Beethoven - who after 2 average symphonies - composed a masterwork of unmatchable quality (Eroica).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

elgars ghost said:


> Mozart had written all of his symphonies bar the final five or six by the time he was 26/27. Haydn didn't even compose his first until he was about the same age so I think the benefits of maturity reflects on Haydn's solid high standard, especially from that point on when he started to feel shackled by his musical obligations to the House of Esterhazy and put a little more 'spike' into some of his works. However, Haydn didn't really move on much after that - his 'London' symphonies, fine as they are, wouldn't really have sounded out of place 15 or so years earlier whereas Mozart with his final ones seemed to be striving to soar to new heights (perhaps knowing that he wouldn't get much - if any - money for them).
> 
> This isn't a put-down of Haydn as I appreciate it was mainly his spade work that helped realise the symphony's potential rather than it being just another hangover from the Baroque era, but because Haydn was by then set in his ways and presumably handsomely rewarded for his later symphonies maybe he didn't feel he needed to rock the boat that had sailed untroubled for so long. Mozart, on the other hand, may have felt that he had less to lose by having nothing to gain in the first place!


Well yeah that's why Haydn's are better overall. They are all basically mature works. Only a handful of Mozart's are really good.


----------



## elgar's ghost

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well yeah that's why Haydn's are better overall. They are all basically mature works. Only a handful of Mozart's are really good.


I agree, that's why I couldn't bring myself to vote. As a consistent body of work Haydn is head and shoulders above Mozart but individually I favour the later Mozart symphonies above any of the Haydn I've heard (although I have all of Mozart's I confess to not having having more than about a third of Haydn's but I'm hoping that is a fair enough representation on which to base my assumption).


----------



## PlaySalieri

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well yeah that's why Haydn's are better overall. They are all basically mature works. Only a handful of Mozart's are really good.


You should not take into account Mozart's immature works. 
So how do you rate a composer - on 104 fine works - or half a dozen immortal masterpieces?
You will be saying next that Viotti should be ranked above Beethoven in the violin.


----------



## neoshredder

lol Immortal masterpieces? Kinda going overboard there. Maybe Symphony 40 could be said for.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

stomanek said:


> You should not take into account Mozart's immature works.
> So how do you rate a composer - on 104 fine works - or half a dozen immortal masterpieces?
> You will be saying next that Viotti should be ranked above Beethoven in the violin.


Pffft. I rate a composer based on the work they produce. An odd ten mediocre symphonies out of 108 or 30+ not very good symohonies out of ~50?

I would seriously rank Viotti above Beethoven when it comes to the violin. Beethoven was no violinist and it shows in the way he writes. Viotti on the other hand understood the instrument more.


----------



## Ramako

elgars ghost said:


> Mozart had written all of his symphonies bar the final five or six by the time he was 26/27.


Perhaps he had decided that the form was not for him?


----------



## PlaySalieri

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Pffft. I rate a composer based on the work they produce. An odd ten mediocre symphonies out of 108 or 30+ not very good symohonies out of ~50?
> 
> I would seriously rank Viotti above Beethoven when it comes to the violin. Beethoven was no violinist and it shows in the way he writes. Viotti on the other hand understood the instrument more.


Then you should rate Mozart higher because he has the better symphonies. You're not going to tell me that any of the London symphonies are a great as 38 - 41. Posterity has not rated them as such even if you do. It's the best you should be looking at. Dickens wrote loads of novels - many mediocre - but the best half a dozen are great - and it is upon that basis that we judge him among the greats. Emily Bronte has only 1 novel - and she's rated as one of the greatest women writers ever.
As for Viotti - VC no 22 is the only repertoire piece and mainly played by students.
Beethoven has arguably the best vc ever written and two or three immortal sonatas. Viotti may have known the violin better - but B took the instrument to a new plane.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Ramako said:


> Perhaps he had decided that the form was not for him?


It does seem from his compositional timeline c.1782 that his priorities shifted to piano concertos, the 'Haydn' quartets and opera.


----------



## Kieran

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well yeah that's why Haydn's are better overall. They are all basically mature works. Only a handful of Mozart's are really good.


Ah right, so Beethoven is outnumbered too! Pity Mozart and Beethoven didn't write so many more symphs, it'd be easier to rate them higher!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kieran said:


> Ah right, so Beethoven is outnumbered too! Pity Mozart and Beethoven didn't write so many more symphs, it'd be easier to rate them higher!


Well said.
I also rate Mendelsohn as a better symphonic composer than Haydn - based on his scotch and italian symphonies - and schubert too - numbers have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Ramako

stomanek said:


> numbers have nothing to do with it.


The thread is called "Mozart symphonies or Haydn symphonies", not "a Mozart symphony or a Haydn symphony", so numbers have lots to do with it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ramako said:


> The thread is called "Mozart symphonies or Haydn symphonies", not "a Mozart symphony or a Haydn symphony", so numbers have lots to do with it.


Then clearly - nobody has a cat's chance in hell of beating papa Haydn.


----------



## trazom

neoshredder said:


> lol Immortal masterpieces? Kinda going overboard there. Maybe Symphony 40 could be said for.


How? The last 4 symphonies have been considered masterpieces even in the Romantic era and they're some of most frequently performed pieces.


----------



## neoshredder

trazom said:


> How? The last 4 symphonies have been considered masterpieces even in the Romantic era and they're some of most frequently performed pieces.


There are masterpieces and then there are Godly masterpieces. Sorry, Godly masterpieces rarely happen. Like Beethoven's 9th, Dvorak's 9th, and etc. I guess I'm not deeply in love with Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

neoshredder said:


> There are masterpieces and then there are Godly masterpieces. Sorry, Godly masterpieces rarely happen. Like Beethoven's 9th, Dvorak's 9th, and etc. I guess I'm not deeply in love with Mozart.


Your opinion is out of line with those at the top - conductors for example - such as karajan and Furtwangler, Klemperer - recorded and re-recorded the great Mozart symphonies with the same passionate enthusiasm with which they did for the Beethoven cycle. Karajan did the jupiter at least half a dozen times on different labels during his career. I believe by contrast - Karajan recorded the Haydn London symphonies once - on DG. I am not sure if Furtwangler bothered with them at all - or Klemperer - but I may be wrong.
Of course you are entitled not to find them special.


----------



## Ramako

stomanek said:


> Then clearly - nobody has a cat's chance in hell of beating papa Haydn.


Of course


----------



## trazom

Ramako said:


> Perhaps he had decided that the form was not for him?


No, it's likely because the symphony was not in high demand at that time. When Mozart composed his first 30 symphonies by the age of 18 in Salzburg, symphonies were considered even less important than serenades; like special after-party treats.


----------



## drpraetorus

Mozarts symphonies have a wit and sophistication that Haydn could never match. they also have a depth and meaning that Haydn could never match. Haydns humor seems to be like a pesants crude pun while Mozarts is elegent repartee. Mozarts emotional depth, not just Sturm und Drang, forshadows that of Beethoven and the coming Romantics.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

drpraetorus said:


> Mozarts symphonies have a wit and sophistication that Haydn could never match. they also have a depth and meaning that Haydn could never match. Haydns humor seems to be like a pesants crude pun while Mozarts is elegent repartee. Mozarts emotional depth, not just Sturm und Drang, forshadows that of Beethoven and the coming Romantics.


But that's why I like Haydn's better. They may be simple, but they are perfect. I think Mozart was better known for his crude humour than Haydn. You don't see _him_ writing canons about licking someone's ****. I think Haydn has written a larger amount of very good symphonies than Mozart. I do think that the last few Mozart symphonies certainly beat all of Haydn's but when you think about who has written better symphonies OVERALL, Haydn is the clear winner.


----------



## Carpenoctem

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> But that's why I like Haydn's better. They may be simple, but they are perfect. I think Mozart was better known for his crude humour than Haydn. You don't see _him_ writing canons about licking someone's ****. I think Haydn has written a larger amount of very good symphonies than Mozart. I do think that the last few Mozart symphonies certainly beat all of Haydn's but when you think about who has written better symphonies OVERALL, Haydn is the clear winner.


I agree that Mozart's last symphonies can't be compared to any symphony Haydn composed. But I also think that Haydn made many excellent symphonies and even though many of them sound alike, most of them are top-notch.

Overall, I don't think Haydn is the clear winner, I'd give it a draw, I only voted for Mozart because his last symphony for me personally is the most perfect symphony made in classical era.


----------



## Ramako

Carpenoctem said:


> Overall, I don't think Haydn is the clear winner, I'd give it a draw, I only voted for Mozart because his last symphony for me personally is the most perfect symphony made in classical era.


Also, you have a Mozart face, so it would be a bit strange if you didn't


----------



## Carpenoctem

Ramako said:


> Also, you have a Mozart face, so it would be a bit strange if you didn't


Haha, don't forget the sunglasses!

I do love Mozart but there are so many other composers I also like so I don't consider myself as a Mozart fanboy.


----------



## SAKO

Have troubled myself too much over this one, so now I have to answer.

Mozart is the better composer overall, but through the sheer volume of quality symphonies Haydn managed to write, I have to give him my vote.

Mozart's later symphonies are better than any composed by Haydn, but to write 105 of them, of which at least half are thoroughly worth listening to, is no mean feat. In fact, he is Herr Symphony.


----------



## Ramako

SAKO said:


> Have troubled myself too much over this one, so now I have to answer.
> 
> Mozart is the better composer overall, but through the sheer volume of quality symphonies Haydn managed to write, I have to give him my vote.
> 
> Mozart's later symphonies are better than any composed by Haydn, but to write 105 of them, of which at least half are thoroughly worth listening to, is no mean feat. In fact, he is Herr Symphony.


At least you came to the light in the end


----------



## waldvogel

Here's a little experiment:

Take two hats, and put 41 (or more, if you want) numbered pieces of paper in one hat, and 104 numbered pieces of paper in the other hat. The first hat represents the Mozart symphonies, and the second hat represents the Haydn symphonies.

Now draw a piece of paper from each hat, and repeat until all of the Mozart pieces of paper are gone. About 80-90% of the time, the random Haydn symphony will be better than the random Mozart symphony. Every once in a while, you'll draw Mozart 38, Haydn 17 or something like that, but Haydn is still going to win most of the challenges - even with the chance that some of Haydn's best would still be in the hat at the end of the experiment.

OK, another comparison. You've got a chance to save the last music library in the world, but can only take 20 symphonies from the Mozart/Haydn group. I'd have four Mozart symphonies in that top 20, and 16 by Haydn. Mind you, the Mozarts would be near the top of the list, but I can't find any way of putting Mozart's Linz or Haffner or the little G Minor symphony in that top 20. And none of the other Mozart symphonies would crack the top 50 list.


----------



## neoshredder

Why do people hate on Mozart's Early Symphonies? Is it wrong to like his early Symphonies more because of the style he played? I admit Carl Stamitz is better at it but I'm way more interested in the early part of the Classical Era.


----------



## Ramako

neoshredder said:


> Why do people hate on Mozart's Early Symphonies? Is it wrong to like his early Symphonies more because of the style he played? I admit Carl Stamitz is better at it but I'm way more interested in the early part of the Classical Era.


I sympathise. I actually quite like Mozart's 27th symphony. I don't have pre-17 I must admit, but some of the early ones are fun. I would prefer however many of them it takes to make up the length of them to numbers 36 and 38.

Off-topic, but can you recommend some Stamitz to me please? I don't have any.


----------



## Guest

Haydn or Mozart?

Beethoven!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Why do people hate on Mozart's Early Symphonies? Is it wrong to like his early Symphonies more because of the style he played? I admit Carl Stamitz is better at it but I'm way more interested in the early part of the Classical Era.


I like his early symphonies, especially the "Odense" symphony and the sixth and seventh symphonies. They aren't as well written as his later ones and I do prefer Haydn's early symphonies but they are nice anyway.


----------



## Mesa

MacLeod said:


> Haydn or Mozart?
> 
> Billy!


Correction.


----------



## neoshredder

Ramako said:


> I sympathise. I actually quite like Mozart's 27th symphony. I don't have pre-17 I must admit, but some of the early ones are fun. I would prefer however many of them it takes to make up the length of them to numbers 36 and 38.
> 
> Off-topic, but can you recommend some Stamitz to me please? I don't have any.


I only got one cd. He might be a one hit wonder for what Mozart's Early Symphonies could become. Mozart's 30th Symphony might be the closest to how Stamitz sounds. This is the one I got.


----------



## SAKO

This afternoon I've relistened to my Adam Fischer performance of the Paris Symphonies.

Proves my vote was correct.

HAYDN.


----------



## Ondine

Mozart or Haydn?

I voted Haydn. Even when Mozart is the one I like the most, when it comes about Symphonies it will be always Haydn. I think that the Symphonic oeuvre of Mozart wasn't his strength as it was for String Quartets/Quintets, Masses or Piano Concertos.

When listening to Haydn's Symphonies we can understand why Beethoven's are so impressive. After a careful listening of Haydn's we can see his architecture all along the Beethoven symphonic works.

What do you think?


----------



## Arsakes

Ondine said:


> Mozart or Haydn?
> 
> I voted Haydn. Even when Mozart is the one I like the most, when it comes about Symphonies it will be always Haydn. I think that the Symphonic oeuvre of Mozart wasn't his strength as it was for String Quartets/Quintets, Masses or Piano Concertos.
> 
> When listening to Haydn's Symphonies we can understand why Beethoven's are so impressive. After a careful listening of Haydn's we can see his architecture all along the Beethoven symphonic works.
> 
> What do you think?


Yes I agree with you mostly.
Although my favorite is Haydn and he is superior in Symphonies, Mozart is better in Piano Concertos. In other fields I still haven't listened enough.

I can see some similarities between Haydn and Beethoven, like each Beethoven symphony is inspired by 5 or more Haydn Symphonies.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ooh IT'S GETTING CLOSE!!!


----------



## Ramako

Go Haydn!!!!


----------



## DarkAngel

For symphonies edge goes to Haydn with the largest number of high quality symphonies partly due to living much longer. His massive output of quality string quartet is also extremely impressive.

Mozart strongest suite is his great piano concertos, although the symphonies 25-40 are no doubt great works later in life Mozart was less interested in symphony and turned his attention to opera composing

BTW no poll should have an option of both equally good, that is so lame......


----------



## clavichorder

Mozart's symphonies are great, very refined pieces of work. So are Haydn's. I'm not sure I agree with the general designation of his piano concertos being that much superior to his symphonies, it seems to me he took the symphonic form seriously enough. 

I was just listening to his 28th symphony in C major. Pretty much any random Mozart symphony you pick, you'll find some magic in it that will be creeping through your head the next day if you devoted some non judgemental attention to it. 28 has some magical moments in the 1st movement. The finale is very perpetual motion. The (2nd)slow movement seems a gem to me, a very sweet and contemplative sad mood, its those continuous rocking back and forth string arpeggios.

Another symphony I've listened to and loved in recent times is no. 14 in A major. It has such a bright spirit, foreshadowed the more romantic organic features of the later symphony no. 29 in A major(its easy to compare the mood of symphonies in the same key for me, and perhaps Mozart was consistent in the way he treated and felt about his pitches). 14 has really nice contrapuntal textures in it, while having that light and airy quality of the earlier Mozart. I recall a quirkier minuet. He may have been as young as 10-12 or as old as 16 when he wrote this. My guess is 15-14, but I should probably look it up.

But the one I've admired most out of the three I've listened to in recent times is 31, but I guess that is the more well know "Paris Symphony." It seems to me its of that very high quality middle Mozart style you find in 29.

Concerning FJ Haydn, recently I listened to his 61st symphony, not being as familiar with 60-80. There is a really funny repeating oboe note in the first movement at this one juncture. It struck me as a good symphony with some noteworthy orchestration quirks.


----------



## clavichorder

I want to correct a mistake: Mozart's 31st, the Paris Symphony, is indeed a great and famous symphony. But I was actually referring to no. 30. Both are in D major, but they have a very different character. The 30th was the "discovery," and it is this secondary theme that has a very interesting punch to it, in the first movement. Definitely among the more clever symphonies, from possibly the most clever composer of all time.


----------



## Kieran

Come on! Haydn has gone into the lead? On what planet, eh?

I dunno, I turn my back for one minute and...


----------



## Ukko

I have developed a strong aversion to Mozart's symphonies, because of a characteristic common to them - at least to the mature ones. I will refrain from telling you, my friends, what it is, because if I draw your attention to it... a part of your music life may be destroyed. I shudder to think of the effect on _Kieran_.


----------



## Guest

Popularity lists are a waste of time. The only "poll" which matters is personal preference. (Sorry about the alliteration!)


----------



## Ramako

Kieran said:


> Come on! Haydn has gone into the lead? On what planet, eh?
> 
> I dunno, I turn my back for one minute and...


104>41 :lol:


----------



## clavichorder

Hilltroll72 said:


> I have developed a strong aversion to Mozart's symphonies, because of a characteristic common to them - at least to the mature ones. I will refrain from telling you, my friends, what it is, because if I draw your attention to it... a part of your music life may be destroyed. I shudder to think of the effect on _Kieran_.


\

Because they are so absurdly great you start neglecting other great, even genial music. They are just that good?

Great they are, but neglect other music? Neglect Haydn? Not on my watch.


----------



## Kieran

Ramako said:


> 104>41 :lol:


ALL 104 <<< #41!!  :tiphat:


----------



## Kieran

Hilltroll72 said:


> I have developed a strong aversion to Mozart's symphonies, because of a characteristic common to them - at least to the mature ones. I will refrain from telling you, my friends, what it is, because if I draw your attention to it... a part of your music life may be destroyed. I shudder to think of the effect on _Kieran_.


Let me guess! They overwhelm you and you're of a fragile nature?


----------



## Ramako

Kieran said:


> ALL 104 <<< #41!!  :tiphat:


Nay!









:tiphat:


----------



## Kieran

Ramako said:


> Nay!
> 
> View attachment 12806
> 
> 
> :tiphat:


:lol:

As Oscar Wilde once wanted to say, we're all in the gutter, but some of us are listening to Jupiter! :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Mozart vs Haydn...cute little porcelain dolls vs a steamroller...


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> :lol:
> 
> As Oscar Wilde once wanted to say, we're all in the gutter, but some of us are listening to Jupiter! :tiphat:


Wilde "wanted to say" something? I love his line, "I have nothing to declare but my genius". Speaking of Oscar, may I recommend the most magnificent biography of him written in the 1980's by Richard Ellman (who died before publication). It is moving, sympathetic and wholly wonderful. 12 out of 10!!!


----------



## neoshredder

Haydn up by 3 now.


----------



## Novelette

Neoshredder, now by 4. I admit that I'm the culprit behind that change. 

I hate to steal Ramako's post from long ago, but as I search myself, I find that I cannot do any better than to repeat his words....

*Go Haydn!!!*


----------



## Novelette

Ramako said:


> Nay!
> 
> View attachment 12806
> 
> 
> :tiphat:


Ramako: that is pure genius.


----------



## sharik

neoshredder said:


> Mozart Symphonies or Haydn Symphonies?


the 40th Mozart symph beats them all.


----------



## shangoyal

I voted for Haydn. Mozart's symphonies are great but Haydn's are so brimming with countless ideas and innovations - they are always a treat to listen to. It's almost like his symphonies are a dictionary of the Classical style that Beethoven (and more composers) referred to regularly. His work is the very definition of the canon. His work gave wings to the imagination of Beethoven, the greatest symphony writer ever.

By the way, this is an excellent poll because Haydn vs Mozart represents the very archetypal question of The Master vs. The Genius. Tasty, very.


----------



## jimsumner

Haydn by a wide margin, for me. Mozart only wrote a handful of mature symphonies. Haydn wrote a boatload and his best are as good as Mozart's best.

Now, piano concertos? A whole different discussion.


----------



## Guest

Mostly comes down to 93-104 vs. 35-41 I guess, since I rarely listen to much else (yet!)...right now I'm taking a break from Mozart and loving Haydn, but I'm afraid to vote lest that change!


----------



## Guest

And yeah, symphonies weren't even Mozart's strong point


----------



## KenOC

arcaneholocaust said:


> Mostly comes down to 93-104 vs. 35-41 I guess...


If you're mainly familiar with the London set (or two sets if you like), then you have a very happy surprise awaiting you one of these days! :tiphat:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

arcaneholocaust said:


> Mostly comes down to 93-104 vs. 35-41 I guess, since I rarely listen to much else (yet!)...right now I'm taking a break from Mozart and loving Haydn, but I'm afraid to vote lest that change!


I always thought that Haydn's strongest symphonies were the ones around the middle. The evocation of emotional extremes, the inventiveness and creativity, not as rigid and formal as the later works.


----------



## KenOC

arcaneholocaust said:


> And yeah, symphonies weren't even Mozart's strong point


Well, let's see. Haffner, Linz, Prague, 39, 40, Jupiter... that's just six, and he's already beat Brahms by 50%! If you had to give up those six or Brahms' four, which would it be? Maybe I'll start a poll... [added: I did it.]


----------



## Guest

Brahms No. 4 > Mozart symphonies.

Mozart piano concertos > most things in life.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> If you're mainly familiar with the London set (or two sets if you like), then you have a very happy surprise awaiting you one of these days! :tiphat:


I know not of what you speak


----------



## Guest

Aww shucks, can I at least have a hint? What's the 10's digit of the symphony number? lol


----------



## chrisco97

Personally, at the moment, I would say I prefer Haydn's. The only Mozart symphonies I really like are #25, #40, and #41. There are countless Haydn symphonies I really like. #101 being my favourite...


----------



## trazom

arcaneholocaust said:


> And yeah, symphonies weren't even Mozart's strong point


Sure they were. Most of his last six almost always appear in top 30 symphonies list, and his last 4 appear before any of Haydn's on this site's top 100 symphonies. This wasn't Mozart's strongest area, but his best in any genre is still as good as it gets.


----------



## neoshredder

Mozart had a lot of strong points. Symphonies definitely one of them. I like those Symphonies with harpsichords in them.


----------



## Ramako

arcaneholocaust said:


> Aww shucks, can I at least have a hint? What's the 10's digit of the symphony number? lol


I think you're missing the point lol.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I always thought that Haydn's strongest symphonies were the ones around the middle. The evocation of emotional extremes, the inventiveness and creativity, not as rigid and formal as the later works.


I like the Symphonies around 35-39 the best. From Haydn that is.


----------



## Ramako

neoshredder said:


> I like the Symphonies around 35-39 the best. From Haydn that is.


Of course, 37 is one of the earliest ones he ever wrote, and 36 is also definitely 'early' rather than 'middle'.


----------



## Ramako

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I always thought that Haydn's strongest symphonies were the ones around the middle. The evocation of emotional extremes, the inventiveness and creativity, not as rigid and formal as the later works.


That's because of the larger number of minor mode symphonies at that time. Formally, the major mode ones from that time are generally more rigid than his late symphonies.


----------



## Winterreisender

I prefer Haydn. I have yet to hear a symphony from him that I haven't liked. With Mozart, I only tend to listen to the later ones.

Favourite early Haydn = No. 27
Favourite late Haydn = No. 104


----------



## neoshredder

Ramako said:


> Of course, 37 is one of the earliest ones he ever wrote, and 36 is also definitely 'early' rather than 'middle'.


Yeah I tend to prefer the early Haydn Symphonies over the late ones I guess. Galante ftw.


----------



## Ramako

neoshredder said:


> Yeah I tend to prefer the early Haydn Symphonies over the late ones I guess. Galante ftw.


I am looking at the earliest ones especially at the moment - and yes, I do like them a lot


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

trazom said:


> Sure they were. Most of his last six almost always appear in top 30 symphonies list, and his last 4 appear before any of Haydn's on this site's top 100 symphonies. This wasn't Mozart's strongest area, but his best in any genre is still as good as it gets.


Yeah, but these 'lists' just cater to the canon and don't explain why the Mozart symphonies are 'better' than Haydn's. Both are masters, it's up to the listener to decide what he/she likes more. Both composers had different approaches to the symphony - if you're into rhythm, contrast, humour and the unexpected, then you'll choose Haydn, if you're into a more varied orchestral sound and into melody, you'll choose Mozart. If you say Mozart symphonies are better - use the music to explain why, what makes them better?


----------



## trazom

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Yeah, but these 'lists' just cater to the canon and don't explain why the Mozart symphonies are 'better' than Haydn's. Both are masters, it's up to the listener to decide what he/she likes more. Both composers had different approaches to the symphony - if you're into rhythm, contrast, humour and the unexpected, then you'll choose Haydn, if you're into a more varied orchestral sound and into melody, you'll choose Mozart. If you say Mozart symphonies are better - use the music to explain why, what makes them better?


You should ask whomever participated in making those lists. I was arguing against the notion that "symphonies weren't Mozart's strong point," or at least what it implies. How his last 5-6 symphonies are received implies that Mozart WAS strong in symphonies, even if he didn't crank out as many in high quality.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

trazom said:


> You should ask whomever participated in making those lists. I was arguing against the notion that "symphonies weren't Mozart's strong point," or at least what it implies. How his last 5-6 symphonies are received implies that Mozart WAS strong in symphonies, even if he didn't crank out as many in high quality.


Well, these arguments are silly; point is, if you like Haydn symphonies, listen to them, if you like Mozart's, listen to his - I don't think one of them can be said to be 'better' than the other because this is a matter of subjectivity - they focus on different things and it's up to the listener to decide what he/she likes best.


----------



## Llyranor

I love Mozart's 41st, especially the final movement. I think the other late symphonies are good too, but they haven't blown me away (or maybe I haven't heard the proper recordings).

Just got the Bruggen set for Haydn (Sturm & Drang, Paris, London), and they are really wonderful! By my limited sampling, I might prefer them to Mozart's so far. Unfortunately, this means I now have to track down the hard-to-find Mozart Bruggen discs.


----------



## ThatClassyKid

Both are amazing. They are my two favorite composers, in my favorite era.


----------



## Rhombic

I am particularly fond of Haydn's symphonies, probably because they were the first symphonies I ever played (2, 23 and 100), but I much prefer them over most Mozart symphonies.


----------



## LancsMan

Just voted Mozart. I am willing to concede that Haydn was much more crucial to the development of the symphony, but Mozart's last symphonies make my spine tingle at a number of points - Haydn never quite touches these spots.


----------



## neoshredder

I like Haydn. But Mozart's melodies are like a dream. Puts you in a euphoric mood.


----------



## Cheyenne

Haydn, with some ease. If the concertos were added, however, Mozart would likely win.


----------



## Lord Lance

I love Haydn's symphonies very much. Everyone has their own tastes and especially for these two composers whose style of composing symphonies were alike. So, it all boils down to personal taste between these two.

He isn't call Father of Symphony for no reason, y'know.


----------



## Blake

It's quite absurd how many symphonies Haydn wrote... over 100.... Are you kidding me? Haha, did he do any of the usual human things like eat, sleep, and crap?


----------



## shangoyal

Somehow, whenever I listen to them, Haydn's symphonies sound way more "mature" to me than Mozart's... it's like Mozart always snatches the most brilliant idea floating around his brain and plants it in his composition - while Haydn does not have any ideas nearly as good, what he has is a deeper storage, which he appears to plumb and use to another effect - that of maturity, but not grubbiness, of a stately architectural approach to music that can be so difficult to produce when you are captivated by ideas as original and phenomenal as Mozart's. Every page of music that Wolfgang wrote has an angelic touch which is liberating, but Haydn keeps us on the earth and shows us what wonders are hidden down here...


----------



## shed

Vesuvius said:


> It's quite absurd how many symphonies Haydn wrote... over 100.... Are you kidding me? Haha, did he do any of the usual human things like eat, sleep, and crap?


I don't see why someone as industrious as Haydn would be deterred by the potty or supper time. Sleep on the other hand... maybe he dreamt symphonies and then transcribed them once awake. That sounds too much like a (Hollywoodified-)Mozartian style of composition for Haydn.


----------



## Kieran

How the heck is Wolfie losing this poll? 

You've got essentially his six adult symphs against 104 symphonies by Haydn: the poll should reflect by having Mozart lead by a margin of 2 to 1...


----------



## trazom

Kieran said:


> How the heck is Wolfie losing this poll?
> 
> You've got essentially his six adult symphs against 104 symphonies by Haydn: the poll should reflect by having Mozart lead by a margin of 2 to 1...


I actually think Mozart is doing very well considering who he's up against. And aren't most or all of Haydn's symphonies technically mature works? While relatively few of Mozart's he composed in his maturity. I bet if it was a vote between Mozart's and Haydn's last 6 symphonies only, the results would be different.


----------



## Nevum

Haydn was great, but Mozart was exceptional. Hands down Mozart.


----------



## starry

Vesuvius said:


> It's quite absurd how many symphonies Haydn wrote... over 100.... Are you kidding me? Haha, did he do any of the usual human things like eat, sleep, and crap?


Well for much of his life he had his own orchestra and a patron who was happy with him writing symphonies for it, so it was quite convenient.


----------



## Funny

Gotta go with Haydn, if only because of the outsize adoration of Mozart that I think distorts a lot of casual discussion and even scholarship. I've seen more than once a passage by Haydn called "reminiscent" of another by Mozart, when the Haydn passage PREDATES the Mozart by years or decades. In addition to all he did for himself and his patron in hammering out the template for the symphony, string quartet, etc., Haydn made a lot of Mozart's music possible. (Pssst! It didn't really come from angels!)


----------



## DaDirkNL

Mozart. I can listen to his six mature symphonies over and over again without being bored. Haydn has some really enjoyable symphonies but they are not nearly on the level of Wolfdog.


----------



## starry

Funny said:


> Gotta go with Haydn, if only because of the outsize adoration of Mozart that I think distorts a lot of casual discussion and even scholarship. I've seen more than once a passage by Haydn called "reminiscent" of another by Mozart, when the Haydn passage PREDATES the Mozart by years or decades. In addition to all he did for himself and his patron in hammering out the template for the symphony, string quartet, etc., Haydn made a lot of Mozart's music possible. (Pssst! It didn't really come from angels!)


They all borrow from each other, so any comparison on that just seems shallow. What matters is what is done with the material. Haydn influenced Mozart and by the end it worked the other way round too. Mozart did have other influences than just Haydn, for example JC Bach.


----------



## Blake

starry said:


> Well for much of his life he had his own orchestra and a patron who was happy with him writing symphonies for it, so it was quite convenient.


Sure. It's still a copious amount, considering symphonies aren't the only form he wrote in.


----------



## Novelette

neoshredder said:


> I like the Symphonies around 35-39 the best. From Haydn that is.


Not Symphony #40?


----------



## Novelette

This thread has been fairly restrained! :tiphat:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Novelette said:


> This thread has been fairly restrained! :tiphat:


Novelette, you must have thought about the fugal finale . I have to hear that symphony again now. Yes, the thread is restrained, but that's good - there should be no 'absolute' way of judging between both, subjectivity decides in the end.


----------



## Roi N

Mozart has 41... Haydn has 104.
Mozart emphasizes the exposition... Haydn develops themes.
Mozart wrote the 29th, the 35th, the 40th and the 41st.... Haydn wrote the *Twelve* _London symphonies_.
Yeah, Haydn won.


----------



## Eviticus

Roi N said:


> Mozart has 41... Haydn has 104.
> Mozart emphasizes the exposition... Haydn develops themes.
> Mozart wrote the 29th, the 35th, the 40th and the 41st.... Haydn wrote the *Twelve* _London symphonies_.
> Yeah, Haydn won.


I find this hard to compare. Mozart most likely wrote less than 40 and Haydn more than 104. Mozart only wrote around 10 as an adult where as Haydn wrote all of his as an adult. The only way i'd feel comfortable comparing is to look at those composed by both between 1778 - 1788. Haydn composed almost 30 during this period including the Paris symphonies with the last one he wrote being the 91st. Mozart wrote his adult 10 starting with the Paris and culminating in the Jupiter.

To me this is a victory for Mozart.


----------



## neoshredder

I feel honored that my threads are still being bumped. I was daring. Though maybe not to everyone's satisfaction. But I was looking for some interesting answers and have gotten them imo. This forum has been a great joy for me. And yeah I still prefer Mozart even though Haydn maybe Composed in styles I prefer overall.


----------



## Bulldog

I think Haydn's symphonies display a greater consistency of excellence than Mozart's. Given that Haydn wrote more than 100, that's an accomplishment that puts him over the top for me.


----------



## Roi N

Eviticus said:


> I find this hard to compare. Mozart most likely wrote less than 40 and Haydn more than 104. Mozart only wrote around 10 as an adult where as Haydn wrote all of his as an adult. The only way i'd feel comfortable comparing is to look at those composed by both between 1778 - 1788. Haydn composed almost 30 during this period including the Paris symphonies with the last one he wrote being the 91st. Mozart wrote his adult 10 starting with the Paris and culminating in the Jupiter.
> 
> To me this is a victory for Mozart.


Are you kidding? You include all of Mozart's finest symphonies but not Haydn's London symphonies? Of course it's a victory for Mozart in your opinion, you excluded Haydn's finest works (*Nothing* can match Haydn's London set). 
And BTW, they both composed for around 30 years.


----------



## Eviticus

Roi N said:


> Are you kidding? You include all of Mozart's finest symphonies but not Haydn's London symphonies? Of course it's a victory for Mozart in your opinion, you excluded Haydn's finest works (*Nothing* can match Haydn's London set).
> And BTW, they both composed for around 30 years.


I compared them both in adult hood and in a period when they were both producing symphonies which i think seems pretty fair. At which point Mozart had took the symphony to a new level producing at least 6 (you could through in the Paris as well) to a very high standard. A standard i believe to be higher than Haydn did during a period when they were both active. After 1788 Mozart did not compose any symphonies. This means Haydn could potentially build on what Mozart produced but not the other way which is the same reason you cannot really compare Mozart's symphonies to Beethoven's because we will never know what Mozart would have produced if he'd lived longer and been active at the same time.

PS I'm not going to start comparing Mozart's childhood works with an adult Haydn as maturity is not just about years.


----------



## Kieran

Roi N said:


> Are you kidding? You include all of Mozart's finest symphonies but not Haydn's London symphonies? Of course it's a victory for Mozart in your opinion, you excluded Haydn's finest works (*Nothing* can match Haydn's London set).
> And BTW, they both composed for around 30 years.


Yeah, let's compare Wolfie when he was five years old with Haydn in London. Really, this poll is about Mozart's 6 adult symphs versus Haydns complete output.

Sounds like a fair scrap to me...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Judging from the current poll results....I think *about the same* is most accurate!


----------



## hpowders

I prefer Haydn's symphonies in general over Mozart's. For me Haydn's Paris and London symphonies are incomparable. As for Mozart, I prefer some of his delightful earlier symphonies over his later efforts.


----------



## neoshredder

I prefer Mozart. Only outdone by Beethoven. But being the second best Symphonist is quite an achievement.  Haydn puts me to sleep tbh. Too many slow movements.


----------



## Bulldog

Both quantity and quality count. I do enjoy Mozart's best symphonies more than Haydn's, but Haydn wrote so many excellent symphonies that I have to give him my vote. 

Where Mozart blows away Haydn is in the piano concerto and opera categories. Concerning the operas, I was looking at the recording numbers on ArkivMusic. There are more recordings of Mozart's Idomeneo than all of Haydn's together. Right, that's just a record of popularity.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Let me preface this by saying that sadly, I'm not familiar with any of Haydn's symphonies. I am however familiar with Mozart's final symphonies.

Ok, from what I gather, the "Haydn people" are saying that Haydn had a larger amount of great symphonies than Mozart did. The "Mozart people" have granted that Haydn may have a larger quantity of great symphonies but the sheer quality of Mozart's final symphonies, i.e. the 38th, 40th, 41st, etc is enough to outweigh Haydn's. Quality > Quantity.

I have a question for the Haydn aficionados, if you had to name the *ONE* Haydn symphony that would be a contender to Mozart's greatest symphony (whether that's 38, 40, 41, etc. is irrelevant). If you had to name *ONE* Haydn that would attract a potential Haydn-convert. What would it be? Choose wisely! Haydn is one of the composers I haven't really given a chance so I'd like to give some of his symphonies a listen, he is the Father of the Symphony after all. It should probably be mandatory that all classical listeners be at least familiar with his music.

*Quite frankly, I'm not gonna listen to 104 symphonies just to determine if he's my cup of tea!!*


----------



## neoshredder

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Let me preface this by saying that sadly, I'm not familiar with any of Haydn's symphonies. I am however familiar with Mozart's final symphonies.
> 
> Ok, from what I gather, the "Haydn people" are saying that Haydn had a larger amount of great symphonies than Mozart did. The "Mozart people" have granted that Haydn may have a larger quantity of great symphonies but the sheer quality of Mozart's final symphonies, i.e. the 38th, 40th, 41st, etc is enough to outweigh Haydn's. Quality > Quantity.
> 
> I have a question for the Haydn aficionados, if you had to name the *ONE* Haydn symphony that would be a contender to Mozart's greatest symphony (whether that's 38, 40, 41, etc. is irrelevant). If you had to name *ONE* Haydn that would attract a potential Haydn-convert. What would it be? Choose wisely! Haydn is one of the composers I haven't really given a chance so I'd like to give some of his symphonies a listen, he is the Father of the Symphony after all. It should probably be mandatory that all classical listeners be at least familiar with his music.


Haydn - Symphony 104.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Well, the most famous Haydn symphony is his 'Surprise' symphony, No. 94.






This was one of the symphonies that got me into Haydn's music. Haydn's The Clock symphony, No. 101, is also excellent:






In the late 1760s and early 1770s, Haydn had a 'Sturm und Drang' phase, and Symphony No. 45 in F-Sharp minor is a good example of the style:






Haydn can't really be summed up in one symphony. Basically, all the London symphonies are great - Nos. 93-104 - all of them masterpieces, imo. One has to hear all of them . You have to give Haydn more time than just 'one symphony', imo. He has great works in all genres.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> One has to hear all of them .


YOWZA! Haha, I'm not quite sure I have enough time for 104 symphonies, not enough time in the day unfortunately. 104 is an intimidating number! I think I'll begin with the London symphonies, thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Symphonies No. 99 in E-Flat Major (has a great Adagio) and No. 100 - 'Military' in G Major are magnificent. 

The London symphony, No. 104, is also one of my favourites, with awesome orchestration and great variety.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

DiesIraeVIX said:


> YOWZA! Haha, I'm not quite sure I have enough time for 104 symphonies, not enough time in the day unfortunately. 104 is an intimidating number! I think I'll begin with the London symphonies, thanks for the suggestions.


Well, usually it's like this:
Haydn's best symphonies are considered his London symphonies.
BUT, Symphony No. 92 in G Major, 'Oxford', is considered by some to almost be a 'London' symphony, in that it's pretty much on the same quality level.

Then, I would say Haydn's Paris symphonies, Nos. 82-87, are also magnificent - and his Sturm und Drang symphonies - Nos. 42, 44, 45, 46, 39, 52, 49, 26, 47 and 48 are excellent.

I think you can't go wrong with Haydn symphonies, but these should be his best. If you like these works, I'm sure you'll enjoy pretty much every symphony by Haydn.


----------



## Morimur

I don't listen to either of them very often but I give my vote to Wolfie; he's a tough cookie to compete against.


----------



## Itullian

I love em both, but there's something about Mozart's melodies
that just grab me in the gut.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Haydn's losing to _MOZART????_


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Well, with such polls, you also have to consider that most people did not hear all symphonies by either composer, and that some voters probably voted along the lines 'hey, I know Mozart, he's supposed to be the greatest, who's this Haydn guy?', or 'I've heard that great piano concerto by Mozart, but who's Haydn?'.


----------



## neoshredder

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, with such polls, you also have to consider that most people did not hear all symphonies by either composer, and that some voters probably voted along the lines 'hey, I know Mozart, he's supposed to be the greatest, who's this Haydn guy?', or 'I've heard that great piano concerto by Mozart, but who's Haydn?'.


Or maybe they are like Haydn is the father of the symphony. Mozart is only good in Piano Concertos and Operas. But tbh they both stick to a formula that limits them imo. They don't branch out like the Romantics due. Though I feel Mozart gets closer to that feeling of the Romantics.


----------



## EDaddy

I voted "about the same". Mozart might have the slight edge for me but not by much as I absolutely love a large number of Haydn symphonies. His architecture was so tight and well-balanced. Not as brilliantly ornate or with as much emotional sweep as Mozart's perhaps, but still outstanding in their own right.

It always hard to say I like one of my favorite composers more or less than another. Do I like Mozart more than Beethoven? No. Do I like Beethoven more than Mozart? No again. That's why, for me, these poles are kind of silly. Silly but fun. There is much to be said about pure, clean fun.


----------



## scastrejon

Haydn's 67 in F major is absolutely amazing but, I am sure, unknown by many.
While listening to te slow movement I always wonder how can something like this exist on earth?

Many classic music fans may arge that movements like this are simply enjoyable but devoid of "depht".

What is "depth"?


----------



## hpowders

Haydn's Paris and London symphonies are so perfectly created. They follow the same basic formula but each one is different and completely delightful. Mozart symphonies, on the other hand, bore me.


----------



## Andrei

EDaddy said:


> I voted "about the same". Mozart might have the slight edge for me but not by much as I absolutely love a large number of Haydn symphonies. His architecture was so tight and well-balanced. Not as brilliantly ornate or with as much emotional sweep as Mozart's perhaps, but still outstanding in their own right.


I have voted 'about the same' for about the same reasons. If I was to pick my three favourites then it's M for all three. But my favourite 18 would only have 6 from M.


----------



## Andrei

hpowders said:


> Haydn's Paris and London symphonies are so perfectly created. They follow the same basic formula but each one is different and completely delightful. Mozart symphonies, on the other hand, *bore me*.


That seems impossible!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Andrei said:


> That seems impossible!


Different strokes.

Symphonies weren't his main genre, anyhow, so it's not shocking that everyone isn't crazy about them. Although he wrote some great symphonies, Mozart's "mainly" known for his Operas and Piano Concertos. I put mainly in quotations because the man wrote great music in seemingly every genre!


----------



## Lord Lance

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Different strokes.
> 
> Symphonies weren't his main genre, anyhow, so it's not shocking that everyone isn't crazy about them. Although he wrote some great symphonies, Mozart's "mainly" known for his Operas and Piano Concertos. I put mainly in quotations because the man wrote great music in seemingly every genre!


I doubt how many Mozarteans look beyond the exalted genres of Mozart: PC, Opera and Symphonies. Ingenious chamber musician.


----------



## nightscape

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Symphonies weren't his main genre, anyhow, so it's not shocking that everyone isn't crazy about them.


He was just starting to get going. Those last few are really something, culminating with No. 41, showing that he was very definitely a symphonist. If he had a few more years to live I think we would have seen that strong progression continue. He was reinventing himself in the genre.


----------



## Vaneyes

I see I haven't voted in this poll.


----------



## hpowders

What do you plan on doing about it? Folks here are waiting as to what to do-Mozart or Haydn. Your vote is crucial!


----------



## Mandryka

scastrejon said:


> Haydn's 67 in F major is absolutely amazing but, I am sure, unknown by many.
> While listening to te slow movement I always wonder how can something like this exist on earth?
> 
> Many classic music fans may arge that movements like this are simply enjoyable but devoid of "depht".
> 
> What is "depth"?


Strangely enough I heard a Paris symphony recently, Richard Tognetti and the Australian Chamber Orchestra, in a concert in London. And it prompted me to think about this question "what is depth?" Over all four movements Tognetti gave the music the same emotional feel - a sort of fizzy bubbly cheerfulness. And musically, it was full of effects which seemed pointless and gimicky.

Whatever depth is, Tognetti playing 83 didn't have it.

So that may be what people mean when they say tha Haydn's symphonies sound shallow - pointless orchestral effects and emotionally limited.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I honestly couldn't choose. Both are amazing.



Moira said:


> Not much in it for me.
> 
> Listened to Mozart's 1st Symphony yesterday. Not bad for a child who was probably nine years old when he wrote it.


Actually, he was EIGHT!


----------



## nightscape

MoonlightSonata said:


> I honestly couldn't choose. Both are amazing.


"About the Same" is an option


----------



## MoonlightSonata

nightscape said:


> "About the Same" is an option


...which is why I chose that.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Mandryka said:


> Strangely enough I heard a Paris symphony recently, Richard Tognetti and the Australian Chamber Orchestra, in a concert in London. And it prompted me to think about this question "what is depth?" Over all four movements Tognetti gave the music the same emotional feel - a sort of fizzy bubbly cheerfulness. And musically, it was full of effects which seemed pointless and gimicky.
> 
> Whatever depth is, Tognetti playing 83 didn't have it.
> 
> So that may be what people mean when they say tha Haydn's symphonies sound shallow - pointless orchestral effects and emotionally limited.


Don't see much wrong with Symphony No. 83, personally. A solid Haydn symphony, probably not his best, but it's still very well made. As is well known, Haydn is not exactly about 'overwhelming' the listeners with emotion. Although his music can be pretty emotional. He's more about craftsmanship - if you like that, he's one of the greatest, imo.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> Strangely enough I heard a Paris symphony recently, Richard Tognetti and the Australian Chamber Orchestra, in a concert in London. And it prompted me to think about this question "what is depth?" Over all four movements Tognetti gave the music the same emotional feel - a sort of fizzy bubbly cheerfulness. And musically, it was full of effects which seemed pointless and gimicky.
> 
> Whatever depth is, Tognetti playing 83 didn't have it.
> 
> So that may be what people mean when they say tha Haydn's symphonies sound shallow - pointless orchestral effects and emotionally limited.


This is more or less how I feel about Haydn's Symphonies in general. I often have moments where I think that they might build up into something profound, but alas they never arrive "there". If Mozart had composed only his 25th Symphony it would be enough to make me vote for him in this poll. I can't deny Haydn had the craftsmanship thing going for him, so I don't dismiss him completely. I do enjoy some of the Piano Sonatas here and there if they are played a certain way (Brendel, Richter) that is about it at the moment. Even with those Sonatas I find they have beauty and a certain refreshing quality, but not really "depth".


----------



## hpowders

Listen to Bernstein/NY Philharmonic in #83. Might change your opinion.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

tdc said:


> This is more or less how I feel about Haydn's Symphonies in general. I often have moments where I think that they might build up into something profound, but alas they never arrive "there". If Mozart had composed only his 25th Symphony it would be enough to make me vote for him in this poll. I can't deny Haydn had the craftsmanship thing going for him, so I don't dismiss him completely. I do enjoy some of the Piano Sonatas here and there if they are played a certain way (Brendel, Richter) that is about it at the moment. Even with those Sonatas I find they have beauty and a certain refreshing quality, but not really "depth".


Well, which London symphonies have you heard? What about the Adagio from Symphony No. 99, or the Introductions for symphonies no. 101 & 102? That has a lot of depth, imo. Those introductions really stand out for me - beautiful orchestration and a strong sense of suspense and mystery. Haydn could do it all.


----------



## dgee

I'd probably been a bit blaze (blah-zay) about haydn symphonies cept for the strum und drang, some of which are quite wonderful, but a recent closer listen to the Paris symphonies proved rewarding. The London symphonies still prove a little square for my ears somehow. The Mozarts will always win for me


----------



## hpowders

What I can't figure out is Leonard Bernstein did one of the finest sets of the Paris Symphonies available with the NY Philharmonic, yet he turned out a disappointingly mannered version of the London Symphonies. Colin Davis shows how it should be done with modern orchestra.


----------



## Blake

Colin Davis' recording of Mozart's late symphonies is also exceptional. About 5 hours of aural nectar.


----------



## Plato

Mozart and Haydn are two different worlds and resonate with two different kinds of souls. It's symptomatic that ppl are divided in the poll. I definitely belong to the Haydn camp, but it's a very subjective matter. For example I love even these Haydn's symphonies which are relatively less appreciated, like 9, 16, 36, 43, 64, 70, 89.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Haydn's depth is different than Mozart's. Haydn's depth is in detail, wit and joy - Mozart's depth lies more in emotion. I prefer Haydn's depth but Mozart's is awesome as well.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I like Haydn's symphonies, but I love Mozart's, so Mozart for me.


----------



## Pugg

Although I like them both, I go for Mozart:tiphat:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Haydn certainly wins on overall quality - as every sy is worth a listen. Mozart composed many in his teens and did not really find his voice until - in my opinion - no 24 (beautiful middle movement). The last 5 symphonies plus 25 and 29 are the best.


----------



## Bulldog

I apparently voted for Mozart, but I wouldn't now. My overall appreciation of Haydn's symphonies keeps growing with every year that passes.


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> This is more or less how I feel about Haydn's Symphonies in general. I often have moments where I think that they might build up into something profound, but alas they never arrive "there". If Mozart had composed only his 25th Symphony it would be enough to make me vote for him in this poll. I can't deny Haydn had the craftsmanship thing going for him, so I don't dismiss him completely. I do enjoy some of the Piano Sonatas here and there if they are played a certain way (Brendel, Richter) that is about it at the moment. *Even with those Sonatas I find they have beauty and a certain refreshing quality, but not really "depth"*.


I'm with you then - but interesting that those who vote for Haydn cite his depth as a reason and of course Mozart is just emotion. When I was doing my MA I was told by a professor - after he had looked over my dissertation - "a good thesis but workmanlike Mr S, workmanlike". 
That about sums up Haydn for me


----------



## dieter

I still don't get this 'either or' mania. Joseph Horowitz, in his wonderful book, 'Understanding Toscanini' maybe hit the nail on the head when he surmised that the USA is a country which simply demands only The Best. I work in the Wine Trade, Mr Parker once ruled this world. He scored wines out of a hundred. It bespeaks this USA obsession with so-called Absolutes, absolutes which are determined by people with very finite brains and experience. I keep asking what is the point of these 'either or' comparisons. They are symptomatic of a very serious psychic deficit. I know, some of you think they're fun, but to what purpose is it fun to rank Haydn's symphonies - he wrote over 104 of them over a long lifetime, a lifetime when music changed - against the short lived Mozart who started writing them in between squeezing teenage pimples and the last days of his miserably short life??????


----------



## bz3

dieter said:


> I still don't get this 'either or' mania. Joseph Horowitz, in his wonderful book, 'Understanding Toscanini' maybe hit the nail on the head when he surmised that the USA is a country which simply demands only The Best. I work in the Wine Trade, Mr Parker once ruled this world. He scored wines out of a hundred. *It bespeaks this USA obsession with so-called Absolutes, absolutes which are determined by people with very finite brains and experience. I keep asking what is the point of these 'either or' comparisons*. They are symptomatic of a very serious psychic deficit. I know, some of you think they're fun, but to what purpose is it fun to rank Haydn's symphonies - he wrote over 104 of them over a long lifetime, a lifetime when music changed - against the short lived Mozart who started writing them in between squeezing teenage pimples and the last days of his miserably short life??????


I don't think it's a USA thing, perhaps a western one. I blame Hegel; or in the alternative, God for making dualities out of so many facets of the human experience. Life would be so much simpler (or perhaps more complex) if we were octopuses.


----------



## ArtMusic

Definitely about the same, and the statistical results show both are about the same based on members who voted one or the other composer.


----------



## PlaySalieri

dieter said:


> I still don't get this 'either or' mania. Joseph Horowitz, in his wonderful book, 'Understanding Toscanini' maybe hit the nail on the head when he surmised that the USA is a country which simply demands only The Best. I work in the Wine Trade, Mr Parker once ruled this world. He scored wines out of a hundred. It bespeaks this USA obsession with so-called Absolutes, absolutes which are determined by people with very finite brains and experience. *I keep asking what is the point of these 'either or' comparisons.* They are symptomatic of a very serious psychic deficit. I know, some of you think they're fun, but to what purpose is it fun to rank Haydn's symphonies - *he wrote over 104 of them over a long lifetime, a lifetime when music changed - against the short lived Mozart who started writing them in between squeezing teenage pimples and the last days of his miserably short life??????*


But you compared and made your choice - Haydn.


----------



## Vaneyes

Concerti - Mozart
Symphonies - Tie
Orchestral misc. - Mozart
Wind Quintets - Mozart
String Quintets - Mozart
String Quartets - Haydn
Piano Quartets - Mozart
Piano Trios - Haydn
Piano Sonatas - Haydn
Violin Sonatas - Mozart
Opera - Mozart
Sacred Choral - Haydn


----------



## DavidA

Haydn symphonies are a remarkable achievement in that they are all worthy of our attention. Mozart's esrly works frankly are very slight - the product of youth. However, for me the great final symphonies of Mozart rank above any Haydn wrote. That's not to denigrate Haydn but to say how extraordinary Mozart's final symphonies are.


----------



## Strange Magic

I voted for Mozart. The last four symphonies represent, for me, a mountain that Haydn just couldn't climb over, talented composer though he was. And I think Haydn knew this; it is indicative of his integrity that he expressed his admiration for the younger man.


----------



## Chronochromie

Haydn. Mozart's last four symphonies may be great, but Haydn has more that are just as good imo.


----------



## Dedalus

I agree with those who have said that Mozart's mature symphonies far surpass any of Haydn's. I find it difficult to vote, because while Mozart wrote a handful of symphonies that are some of the best ever written, Haydn wrote far more "merely" excellent symphonies. I think my vote will have to be "about the same", reflecting the fact that Haydn's sheer quantity of 9/10 symphonies equals Mozart's lesser number of 10/10 symphonies.


----------



## clavichorder

Yes, but it's also a misconception that Mozart merely has symphonies that are of genius and juvenilia/works of limited substance. All of the symphonies actually written Mozart are really good. And every Symphony 25 on, as well as many prior, are works of genius.

But I can't take a side here at all. Because Haydn is also a favorite.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dedalus said:


> I agree with those who have said that Mozart's mature symphonies far surpass any of Haydn's. I find it difficult to vote, because while Mozart wrote a handful of symphonies that are some of the best ever written, Haydn wrote far more "merely" excellent symphonies. I think my vote will have to be "about the same", reflecting the fact that Haydn's sheer quantity of 9/10 symphonies equals Mozart's lesser number of 10/10 symphonies.


then you would put Bocherini's 500 quintets ahead of Mozart?


----------



## John Kiunke

My top 10 faves between the two:
1. Mozart 41
2. Haydn 44
3. Mozart 40
4. Mozart 25
5. Mozart 29
6. Haydn 104
7. Haydn 45
8. Mozart 35
9. Haydn 81
10. Haydn 26

I gotta go with Mozart.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

I would go with Haydn over all. Mozart's last symphonies are great. Haydn wrote better symphonies numbered from 20 and down over Mozart's first 20.


----------



## alanneilh

Definitely Mozart here. I especially love symphonies 35 through 41 because, for me, they are the best syphonic achievements I have ever heard with No. 40 being the very best and certainly the most popular of all Mozart's symphonies.


----------



## Pugg

I am getting confused by al those Mozart/ Haydn polls .


----------



## LarryShone

Too hard to choose between the two...


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

LarryShone said:


> Too hard to choose between the two...


Yes it is hard and one day you might pick one and the next day the other.


----------



## Pugg

LarryShone said:


> Too hard to choose between the two...


Just like in real live.


----------



## LarryShone

I would have to vote About the same, if those are the only options. Tho stylistically they are poles apart. I love them both but for different reasons.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

LarryShone said:


> I would have to vote About the same, if those are the only options. Tho stylistically they are poles apart. I love them both but for different reasons.


That is why people like them. I do not think people want all symphonies to be alike.


----------



## Pugg

LarryShone said:


> I would have to vote About the same, if those are the only options. Tho stylistically they are poles apart. I love them both but for different reasons.


If O.P. starts a poll he / she can do what he / she likes, just like real life.


----------



## Merl

I'm jumping on the Haydn side but it's a close call. Both made some sublime music.


----------



## Pugg

Merl said:


> I'm jumping on the Haydn side but it's a close call. Both made some sublime music.


Hardly any difference between the votes .


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Surprise---Prefer Haydn for both symphonies and chamber music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Both were great in their own way, very hard to say who's 'better' - it depends on what one's looking for .


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I had to choose Mozart because he is my favorite composer but lately I've listened to more Haydn symphonies. Mozart sits more in my blood while Haydn is nice the moment I hear it, but forget it soon (mostly)...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pugg said:


> Hardly any difference between the votes .


True - but given that Haydn's composed 104 symphonies - all more or less accomplished works - and Mozart probably composed less than a dozen in his mature years - Mozart's handful of great symphonies seem to carry greater weight among those who voted for him. But I wonder how many Haydn voters think Mozart's last 3 are better than any of Haydn's but went for papa because of quantity.


----------



## jdec

Haydn wins in quantity, Mozart wins in quality. Not that Haydn's are not high quality, but Mozart is still the superior Master here for me.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> True - but given that Haydn's composed 104 symphonies - all more or less accomplished works - and Mozart probably composed less than a dozen in his mature years - Mozart's handful of great symphonies seem to carry greater weight among those who voted for him. But I wonder how many Haydn voters think Mozart's last 3 are better than any of Haydn's but went for papa because of quantity.


I went for Haydn because I prefer Haydn's best over Mozart's best. I'm tempted to say, "Pure and simple", but I won't.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

stomanek said:


> True - but given that Haydn's composed 104 symphonies - all more or less accomplished works - and Mozart probably composed less than a dozen in his mature years - Mozart's handful of great symphonies seem to carry greater weight among those who voted for him. But I wonder how many Haydn voters think Mozart's last 3 are better than any of Haydn's but went for papa because of quantity.


Mozart's last works have perhaps a more varied emotional weight than Haydn's last symphonies, though Haydn's works win me over with their perfect order, humour and instrumental interplay.


----------



## Sloe

Haydn because of the quantity I do not want to hear the same music over and over again.


----------



## ArtMusic

The individual composer's results are about the same anyway, with Mozart at 41% and Haydn at 39%. Therefore the statistical results of the poll indicate there is at best a marginal preference of Mozart over Haydn. Both are great composers that deserve equal recognition as recognized by the poll (more or less).


----------



## jegreenwood

Pugg said:


> Hardly any difference between the votes .


As it should be.


----------



## hpowders

For perfection of structure: Haydn.

For emotional depth: Mozart.


----------



## Pugg

And Mozart is still leasing!


----------



## Der Titan

I voted for Haydn. Of course the last 4 symphonies of Mozart are wonderfull and there are some others. But the Paris and London symphonies of Haydn are marvelous and there were some others. So I say: Mozart and Haydn were both very talented composers, but Haydn has become something like a "genuin symphonist" which Mozart never was. Mozart strength ist the piano concerto, he has written wonderfull piano concertoes, he is of course also a genius of the opera, whereas Haydn is marvelous in chamber music, piano music and as a symphonist. Therefore it's fair to judge him higher as a symphonist, but not in other fields. 

Anyway, if I see the result of this poll, I come always to the conclusion that Haydn is underrated. There is no reason to think that Mozart and Beethoven were better composers than Haydn. Haydn is really great and I love him more and more.


----------



## gellio

Who's Haydn? Just kidding.


----------



## Bettina

I love Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies equally. For Haydn, I enjoy his sense of comic timing, and his skillful use of motivic development. For Mozart, I enjoy his beautiful, opera-style melodies--and his poignant use of chromaticism.


----------



## Pugg

gellio said:


> Who's Haydn? Just kidding.


Punishment:


----------



## Haydn man

Bettina said:


> I love Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies equally. For Haydn, I enjoy his sense of comic timing, and his skillful use of motivic development. For Mozart, I enjoy his beautiful, opera-style melodies--and his poignant use of chromaticism.


I think that sums up my thoughts.
I have the impression in my mind that Mozart was blessed with amazing talent that set him apart from others and into the genius category. Haydn on the other hand great as he was could not climb quite the same peaks.


----------



## hpowders

For "symphonic perfection" of form and concentrated pithiness and humor, nobody did it better than Haydn!


----------



## pcnog11

neoshredder said:


> Which do you prefer?


Mozart, any day!


----------



## hpowders

pcnog11 said:


> Mozart, any day!


Even leap year day?


----------



## EarthBoundRules

Apparently I voted for Haydn long ago, but I'm not so sure these days. I'll have to hear more of their symphonies to give a definite answer. So count that as one less for Haydn.


----------



## itarbrt

An 49 aged Haydn said that a 25 aged Mozart was the best composer he ever heard . I suppose he wasn't forced to do such a thing .


----------



## Bettina

itarbrt said:


> An 49 aged Haydn said that a 25 aged Mozart was the best composer he ever heard . I suppose he wasn't forced to do such a thing .


That might have been true at the time when Haydn said it, when he was 49 years old. But he caught up with Mozart several years later. By the time he hit his mid-fifties, he was writing symphonies that easily rival anything Mozart ever composed. Haydn might have been a late bloomer, but he got there in the end!


----------



## hpowders

In my opinion, Haydn surpassed Mozart in symphony composing with the 12 London Symphonies.

Twelve precious gems!

As an aside, he also caught up to Mozart in vocal music excellence with The Creation.


----------



## itarbrt

Sonata form has a structure incredibly rigid and strict . Maybe Mozart with his talent try other development till 1788 . Maybe armonically speaking Mozart has something more to tell us . But I love Haydn .


----------



## Knight769

It is a difficult choice because I love them both. But I have to give the advantage to Mozart. Here is my top 10 list. Note, two of my Mozart favorites were from the early 1770's, when he was still a teenager (#29 & #20).

1. Mozart -40
2. Mozart -41
3. Haydn -44
4. Mozart -29
5. Haydn -45
6. Mozart -20
7. Haydn -104
8. Haydn -88
9. Mozart -35
10. Haydn -52


----------

