NOW you're starting to ask useful questions. And there you might have me. Mozart had few equals during that period, the most likely being Haydn. If you had specified the early half of the century, I might have defended Vivaldi as a challenger, although I would have trouble arguing that he was superior, if indeed even an equal. I also personally like Albinoni and Teleman from that period, but the same caveat applies to them. And Wagner came a little too late to qualify. CPE Bach did some good work during that time, but not of the caliber of Mozart. As did Boccherini, if you like a carryover from the more Baroque period. Even Antonio Salieri produced some notable opi in that time. But I will concede that, limited to the period you describe, Mozart was the luminary.
You seem to have a condescending attitude to the music of that time.
Nonsense. I have great respect for Haydn, and I delight in Mozart. My objection is to the assertion that the latter was the superior of Ludwig Van Beethoven. That is one step short of sacrilege in my book.
Beethoven wrote the music angels whistle on their way to work, and God Himself hums in the shower.
Whenever I hear that music of the angels metaphor I most often hear it applied to Mozart. Beethoven’s music was quite earthy actually - angsty and, in his later period, quite esoteric. It’s hard to call something like the Grosse Fugue, great as it is, music of the angels. Or the vulgar ‘Ode to Joy’ theme which sounds like nothing so much as a German Beer Hall tune. What he does with it is great but the tune itself is very common. Leonard Bernstein used to mock it all the time. Beethoven wasn’t really a melodist.