At this point, I would say that KE is probably the more important of the two ... RW was in YES, and even he admits that too much of the music was filler and not that big a deal and that even things like TFTO were boring and whatever ... well, you and I know that TARKUS on the hands of Rachel Flowers, and several other pieces on her piano, are without a doubt some of the finest piano/organ concerts done in all of the 20th century, and since RW is not a great musician to see what has been done with KE's material, and show us that his compositional skills are more important than the 68 instruments he uses for one riff each!

As much as I like RW, and his playing is excellent, and probably more on par with classical musicians, in the end, his lack of respect, even in humor, for a lot of his work in that band, simply makes me think that he was there more for the "filler" than he was for the music, and of course,  he left and did not help establish even further and better that group's tradition. KE, at the very least, continued creating new material, and did not waver in his compositional skills ... the main difference being that one was being a serious musician and the other was just being a dressed up clown in the middle of so many keyboards, that made things look impressive ... today what he did can be done with 2 keyboards, probably one! With Keith's material in Rachel's hands, I see a lot more than just some small bit and piece supposedly about something or other ... listen to that piano, and you can't help think ... that is a massive piece of music! 

While I like RW's work in YES, I really can not say the same thing about him!

Love 'em both but I voted for Keith principally for this reason:

Wakeman is a keyboard player who composes

Emerson was a composer who played keyboards

I voted Emerson, based on his work with ELP. 

But when I think about solo work, I prefer Wakeman.

So when I consider both careers in total, it's pretty much a toss up.  

And why did Emerson rely even more on doing covers?

Six Wives, King Arthur and No Earthly Connection aside, quantity clearly doesn't trump quality. From around '86 Wakeman was churning out 5 or 6 albums a year of fondant new age drivel. Maybe he had more ex wives to satisfy than Keith? I'm not even convinced Keith has done more covers: (OK they've both done Christmas albums certainly) but Rick also has an entire album of Beatles covers (Tribute to the Beatles), an entire album of traditional hymns (Morning Has Broken), an entire album of classical adaptations (Classical Variations), a entire album of traditional christian music (Always With You) and an entire album of cover versions (Piano Portraits) there may be more but I ran out of patience looking for them, you might have better luck:

http:////www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=766" rel="nofollow - http:////www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=766

OK, perhaps there's a lot more covers stuff from Wakeman than I remember, but I was thinking mostly of their more popular an creative periods (mostly the 70's, of course), in which Wakeman did mostly his own original stuff while... well, yes, ELP did mostly original stuff too, but they always included their covers in their albums (which I mostly love, actually). However, for me Six Wives, Arthur, and No Earthly Connection would be more than enough to choose Wakeman over Emerson (in a way, since No Earthly Connection wouldn't be among my personal favourites). I mean, with ELP their golden period consists of 4 or 5 albums, and fans of the band may just love them all. As far as I'm concerned, I like some of the songs, some others leave me cold, and some others I just can't stand, so in the end there's no really great albums for my enjoyment from them. From Wakeman, I find among my favourite albums 6 Wives, Arthur, and Out There, and I like almost as much Journey and Criminal record, plus two masterpiece albums with Yes in Fragile and CttE. And a whole bunch of songs from the rest of their albums (both Wakeman solo and Yes) that I love (more so than the ELP ones). So, in the end, much more music from Wakeman that I love, even if the amount of music in total will earn a good deal of music I wouldn't like (which doesn't really bother me much, for I just don't have to listen to that). And still, quality aside, the statemen had been that Emerson is considered more of a composer and Wakeman more of a player, when it is clear that Wakeman has composed so much more music (and as I said, for me in particular, more music that I like).

I don't have a problem with any of that but just think how many keystrokes you would have saved us both if you had originally typed:

I don't know ... if you listen to Keith's compositions from ELP on the piano played by Rachel Flowers, it is really difficult to say that ... Emerson had what would be considered a very "modern" technique for playing the keys, something which became invisible in the synthesizers, but all of a sudden are LOUD AND CLEAR in Rachel's hands ... that "translation" is massive and major, and something of the style of a lot of piano classical music in the 60's and early 70's before the synthesizers took over and hid everything else.

RW may have the chops, but even he has not been able to show the YES music on a piano in a solo style, and this (TO ME!!!!! TO ME!) just shows you that he does not believe or give credit to any of his friends at the time for these compositions and how they came up, not to mention him making fun of the lyrics ... it's not exactly scatology, you know! 

For me, RW has made a point that he does not really believe this stuff to be serious music and will continue to be such ... because he does not have the ability to "translate" what he played into something else ... his talent is limited to his massive ego, and the music is supposed to service him .... when in fact 99% of all players are there to service the "music" ... !

You have to realize how KE's piano pieces in Rachel's hands come off as absolutely massive piano concerti ... but it's really hard to tell this to an audience that does not know what that means, and where a lot of rock music came from, specially colored by different sounding instruments! 

But RW, by comparison to KE, was already a 2nd generation, not even an originator!

This---very concise great playing and solo's---Keith is great but a bit of a w**ker---but Tony Banks is my favorite.

There's one other keyboardist who, to me, sounds almost literally like a cross between Emerson and Wakeman.

Rick van der Linden of Ekseption and Trace.

Who's your favorite keyboardist?

keyboardist, not composer for keyboard.

Sorry ... this would be totally incorrect, as they are both incredible composers, and separating the two from both of these is impossible! But you can see Keith's composition in Rachel Flowers' rendition of several pieces and concert pieces, whereas Rick has not been shown that appreciation or definition as yet ... and he himself, is not championing the music of his band like he could (should/would?) ... and that makes a difference.

It would be a "keyboardist" if all you are choosing is a Big Mac or a BK burger!

Give it a break ... treat the music with the respect that it deserves ... specially in "progressive" .... otherwise it is all meaningless and stupid and down right silly! 

I happen to like both "keyboardists" ... however KE gets the nod because his compositions are far more advanced and courageous and "modern" music than the simpler riff oriented material that RW has done.

not Patrick Moraz?