About the poorly, deficient,mediocre,and company,structured works of
Chopin,Schumann,and Rachmaninoff,i am really tired of it.  One of the
reasons who made me take the choice to quit from my composition studies
(many years ago) was that kind of narrow vision and perception on a Art
work,from most actual composers and composition teachers.Everything has
to be cerebral (even if it sounds ugly as most contemporary works),and
perfect from the" logic" point of view.But which is correct?,and which
is cerebral?.And who has the authority to say:Schumann,and Chopin are
deficient under the structural point of view?.  Anywayit seem like a good
to be judged by a mortal one,and a genius to be judged by a mediocre.
I would like to know which work among the tons of mediocre 20 century
composers(with their respective exceptions of course),can be stand at
higher level than the simplest Schumann,Chopin,and Rachmaninnoff works?

About the Rachmaninoff echlecticism,i agree too with Donald.
Rachmaninoffis very clear in his music,and his music (as Don says: is
distinctive), and this means an opposite notion to that of eclectic.  One
more think: Rachmaninnoff music sounds:sincere,and emotional,with no other
pretensions.  Cordially:

Gerardo:.