I wrote (apparently with one eye going in a different direction from the
other):

>Well, I started this tempest in a teapot.  However, I'll stand by my
>criteria.  All of these composers wrote piano music.

That should be "wrote great music for the piano."

>Whether they tell us something new about 1) piano writing and 2) deeply
>idiomatic about their understanding of the instrument can be argued with.
>Haydn's really nothing that shows us anything different than a lot of
>his contemporaries in their keyboard writing.  Scriabin derives from
>Chopin.  Rachmaninov, Busoni, and Medtner seem to me to play around with
>Liszt and Chopin.  Stockhausen to me does interesting stuff, but not
>particularly idiomatic.  Grainger, Rzewski, and Messiaen come very close
>to making my list, and I thought very hard about putting them in.  However,
>something held me back -- probably timidity.  As for Jim Tobin's nominations
>of Satie and Poulenc, I can't call Satie's music great music,

Wow!  Apparently my fingers didn't keep up with my brain.  That should
be "while Satie writes great music, it's not all that new in piano
technique,"

>and Poulenc's piano music, though interesting (even beautiful),
>doesn't really seem to me his best work.  I've always Poulenc's best
>keyboard music in the accompaniments to his songs.

That should be "solo keyboard music."

Steve Schwartz