In your opinion
.
It isn't very interesting either.
Hundreds, even if we limit ourselves to the Romantics.
in your opinion
Well, at least you have some taste.
quite a lot, actually

The Henselt is a fine piece. Henselt is certainly neglected. As is Dreyschock. However Henselt is the more interesting. Dreyschock is less empty than one would expect, considering what was said about him by contemporaries.
That depends on how much you are prepared to read before machine gunning the place with posts.
You machine gunned the place with anti-Schumann bile first.
Depends what you mean by splashy.
I know both were pianists and they played there own music in public, and liked to make an effect via the display of their own virtuosity. However the musical virtues are always predominant. Never is there any sense of empty virtuosity.
Well, we cannot really use him to compare with Schumann.
I doubt it.
.
I base my judgement on a wide variety of works for piano and orchestra that I have played, studied and listened to. I am happily insulting to Schumann.
(sic)
I have studied an awful lot of piano music too. All (well nearly) of Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Bach, Mozart, Schumann, most of Faure, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Haydn, Scarlatti, Ravel, Scriabin, a good deal of Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Franck, Clementi, Bartok, Rameau, Handel, d'Indy and Mendelssohn. So?
This represents more than 20,000 hours at the keyboard. I've also worked on the major art songs of Schumann, Schubert, Mussorgsky, Faure, Brahms and Rachmaninov. In my view, Schumann is the 3rd or 4th greatest composer for piano. And probably 5th or 6th greatest composer of all time across genres. The Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, the Davidsbundler dances, the Symphonic Etudes, and the Kinderszenen are amongst the most glorious, beautiful, rich, and spiritual works for any solo instrument.
Sadly yes, and they are horrid. Not even Horowitz could polish a turd.
Rubbish. So you think that Horowitz' late recordings are horrid? That's idiotic. Anyone who is open minded ought to allow the late Horowitz Schumann recordings to wash over them. This is music making of a rare kind, one supreme genius totally understanding another. Horowitz here deifies Schumann, who in turn deifies Horowitz. Here we have the soul of the true tondichter being revealed in all its crystalline glory. Those who fail to experience this pure beauty are only robbing themselves, which is pitiable. This is as far from vapid scalar or arpeggio roulades as can possibly be imagined, this is pure music making in which not a note or gesture is misplaced. Horowitz reveals most fully what Hutcheson says about the Kreisleriana: "To appreciate it a high level of aesthetic intelligence is required...This is no facile music; there is severity alike in its beauty and its passion". Also, in relation to the Fantasy in C, that "no words can describe the Phantasie, no quotations set for the majesty of its genius..One must here it often from eminent pianists to get an adequate idea of its grandeur"
There is nothing in it for him.
Thal
Horowitz, who adored Schumann, must have known less than you? Or perhaps he knew the artistic worth of the music better than most, being possibly the greatest pianist of all time.