Extremely underrated!

Or overrated.

Or extremely overrated.@@thomase13

Ferdinand was a real G

This concerto was not for nothing his most successful piano concerto and quite popular til it got forgotten, same happened with Moscheles #3, Field #2, Hiller Concerto, Bronsart.

@@organman52 Unless you are a composer as well, you have no business calling anyone a non-entity. If you are a composer, let's see your work.

@@ihaveacoolnickname Doesn't matter what he is. Calling anyone a non-entity (and their work 'garbage', whether you actually believe that or not) is supremely condescending. Robert is clearly just an embittered asshole, whether he's a composer or not.

"This concerto reminds me of... nothing... exept Ries" Este es el mejor comentario que leí sobre la música de Ries. Hay una especial obsesión en los comentarios de youtube por estar comparando a Ries. La mayoría de comentarios en vídeos de su música se trata de eso... Una manía que no pasa con otros compositores... sólo con Ries. Estoy de acuerdo con vos. ¡¡Qué bueno poder apreciar a Ries por su música!!

@@poedlaulceap2417 Virtually every moderately successful composer (living or dead) that isn't part of the famously established canon of classical music will, and is getting, compared to some other composer from said established canon. This is certainly not exclusive to Ries.

Agree! I love that part very well!

Exact!

It is like an homage to his Maestro.

I believe he might be quoting the Triple Concerto's finale in the 3rd movement as well.

why is that a wow?

Agreed. My favourite part!

More beautiful than Beethoven’s slow movement from the 3rd, 4th and 5th Piano Concertos? I definitely don’t agree with you. Ries’ slow movement is charming but that’s about all

This concerto was his most popular and most often performed also after his death. Franz Liszt heard his father Adam Liszt play it often and was according to Adam "obsessed" with it. The concerto fell into obscurity end of 19th beginning 20th Century. The same happened with Moscheles #3, Field #2, Hummel #2 and #3.

It’s likely due to the fact that music history crowns the high points of a style, and not the catalysts. We all love Liszt, Schumann, and Chopin, but it’s the Moscheles/Weber/Dussek/Vorisek/Hummel/Ries/etc generation that set the stage for the Romantic Era. Same with the early Baroque (1620-1660) of Sweelinck/Frescobaldi/Froberger, or the early Classical (1710-1740) of Stamitz/Sammartini. It’s a shame, though; great pieces in all areas of music history

It's the one and only Ries concerto I've seen performed on a leading local chamber orchestra's concert stage. It was applauded very enthusiastically, probably also because the audience hadn't expected such a virtuosic work.

Aram Khachaturian? I thought you were dead!

Has to to do with publisher. Here is the list in order of composition 1. #6 (1806 but published as late as 1824) 2. #4 (1809) 3. #2 (1812) 4. #3 (1812) 5. #5 (1815-17 publ. 1823) 6. #7 (1823) 7. #8 (1826, publ. 1827) 8. #9 (1832) #1 is a Violin Concerto.

@@bartjebartmans Thanks!

kinda strange

Ries wrote this concerto a couple of years before Hummel's 2nd and 3rd. That makes this one of the earliest piano concertos anticipating stylistic developments of future Romantic composers. Maybe even a tad before John Field.

You listen to it on KZfaq and then have to let the world know that you wouldn't go to a performance of this. What is the point again of you commenting? The potpourri thing shows also a flawed mindset.

This work blossoms in countless ways - as a scholar, I see this and future listening experiences as aid to my improvisational vocabulary at the piano and to structuring/arranging compositions; it warms me to imagine Ries showing reverence to earlier masters similarly so.

Is your potpourri comment the result of your reading similarities with later works in an anachronistic manner - in the same way that people refer to Mozart as sounding Beethovenian, instead of the other way around? As if Ferdinand Ries was living at the middle of the nineteenth century and lazily mining the styles of his predecessors?

@@paulwl3159 Yes I run into that a lot. For instance how much Hummel sounds like Chopin, etc. Many seem to not understand that pianists wrote concertos for special occasions with the idea to keep a steady income, not an easy undertaking if one looks at the competition they had. There was always this stress to keep audiences happy so they were invited back next season, for that reason the finales often had recognizable melodies and specific technical difficulties to dazzle, John Field used Irish or Scottish folksongs or melodies which sounded like one, so did Moscheles, so did Ries, etc. etc. They had to tread a fine line of being not too commercial, too showy and facile but also not too modern, the last thing they wanted was to baffle the audiences. They left that up to Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, etc. who came from a whole different vantage point.