quotes Ernest Newmann, "His music is not always easy to follow at first hearing, but not because of any extravagance of thought or confusion of technique, it is simply because his music really does go on thinking from bar to bar, evolving logically from it's premises." this article also says that in medtner's music, every repetition is unique and different.
That's very interesting; could be why the Maharajah of Mysore loved Medtner's music; these are qualities found in Indian classical music, the continual evolving and the abscence of repetition. Maybe this is why Medtner (like Indian music) has never really caught on in the west. The Maharajah was able to hear the similarity between the two, don't know if it was concious, or maybe I'm way off-base; just a thought, there it is.
I think the producer is missing the point. Medtner is nothing like Rachmaninov, there are only superficial similarities. Medtner is unique in the history of music; the only other composer you can compare him to is Chopin, another completely unique musical individual, and a piano and song composer, almost exclusively.
Medtner's downfall in our time is the abstruse quality of his melodies. He uses melody the way Beethoven did in his late period. And the fact that the melody is subservient to the chord progression, making it somewhat vague in many instances (IMO) in his music doesn't help the general public either; but he's showing up more and more on programs. I think he was way ahead of his time, although he was considered to be behind it during his life. He will not be forgotten, in a hundred years I'm sure that he will cut a better figure in music history than he does now.
But if I had to have only one composer or the other, it would be Rachmaninov. I voted for him.

Glad it's only hypothetical, I can have both...