I'm glad you enjoyed these Liadoff pieces. And I'm glad you mentioned the Chopin "Trois Nouvelle Etude" No. 2. I was racking my brain to recall the Chopin piece that seemed to influence 36/3. Thanks!
Yes, I normally do put the key signatures in to postings like this, and should have done so in this case. I'll remember that for next time.
Hmmm, you're in error though on Op. 33, No. 1. I have The Well-Tempered Press Edition open and 33/1 is clearly marked "Prelude", not Pastoral. So then I double checked in the IMSLP which depicts the Muzyka Edition in Russia which also shows the piece to be titled as "Prelude". Thus, I'm confident that it was correct the way I originally listed it. If you could kindly change it back, it would be helpful.
As for the key signature, I believe you meant to put F minor, not major. But some might debate that the piece is in its relative major of A flat. The opening bass harmony is low F which is evidence for F minor along with the melancholy sound as the piece unfolds maintaining the Fm feeling. However during the last four measures of the piece, there is modulation whereby the tonal sense shifts to A flat, and in the final measure the bass harmony is A flat and the top note in the treble clef is A flat too. So there is some tonal center ambiguity there for sure. It seems that Fm prevails through most of the piece, but A flat controls the latter part of the piece and gets the last word. I guess I can be had either way on it.
I'm certainly OK with the naming convention of Liadov rather than Liadoff. In the U.S. Liadoff is probably more the norm. Both Hinson's Guide to the Pianist's Repertoire
and Friskin & Feundlich's Music for the Piano
lists the composer as Liadoff. But no question that in Europe Liadov is the usual spelling, and, of course, Piano Society is based in Europe, thus the convention. It's The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.