# The Swing of the Pendulum



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

George Lloyd and the Crisis of Romanticism


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I heard a similar theory on the cyclical nature in art. I think it is likely postmodernism will give way to a new Enlightenment, when everyone gets tired of what some think is the more purely aural/sensory aspects of music and other arts, and wanting to get back to meaning, or more classical themes.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It may be laziness on my part, but I find theorising about newer music rather tedious. For me the music comes first and I know little of Lloyd's music (a couple of samples I just tried sound like pastiche to me rather than new music) but I do know quite a bit of the music the author is seeking to denigrate objectively. It is only when I know the music quite well that I know how to relate to a theoretical take on what it means and where it is going. This essay seems just too familiar in its attack on the "high priests of modernism" - a term that oozes resentment but seems to function well as a rallying call for many - but if I were to find myself liking Lloyd's music I would let the tired old critique of modernism pass and might even accept it as an explanation for why Lloyd is not more widely known and revered.



Phil loves classical said:


> I heard a similar theory on the cyclical nature in art. I think it is likely postmodernism will give way to a new Enlightenment, when everyone gets tired of what some think is the more purely aural/sensory aspects of music and other arts, and wanting to get back to meaning, or more classical themes.


I do wonder what getting "back to meaning" might involve? You find meaning lacking in some (presumably, given the context, modernist) music and feel that returning to "classical themes" would correct this? Is this a call for more pastiche instead of following the tradition of music and art regularly renewing and reinventing itself in new ways? There can be little doubt that there will be a reaction against the presently new, and this may involve borrowing aspects of earlier aesthetics, but because it will also be even more new it will also initially be a challenge to its listeners. You can't make great music by copying or imitating old tropes.

Incidentally, new art/classical music these days is so varied that I am surprised to hear you like none of it. And if you do like some of it then why bother tilting at postmodernism, a word that seems to mean whatever we need it to mean. Perhaps, if the term is useful at all in music, it merely refers to our being able to enjoy many very different takes on what music these days should be about? But, from what I have heard, I am not sure that Lloyd's music has much of a place in any of it so a call to go "back" to that does seem extreme and depressing to me!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Make Music Great Again!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Music since 1900 has gone in, in, in until it imploded. Now some people want another "big bang" so it can go outward again. Maybe the internet will enable this to happen.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Becca said:


> George Lloyd and the Crisis of Romanticism


Thanks for the article.

Whatever George Lloyd's tendencies musically, the bottom line in this era of recorded music (when Lloyd's music is readily available to hear at any time) is "do you like his music?" Whether he is popular with the concert public or not, the fact remains that one can easily listen to his many works and make up his/her own mind about the quality or simple likeability of what one hears. I enjoy much George Lloyd music, especially the symphonies. Whether or not he was an out-of-time Romanticist or an out-of-step Modernist makes little difference to my ears.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> It may be laziness on my part, but I find theorising about newer music rather tedious. For me the music comes first and I know little of Lloyd's music (a couple of samples I just tried sound like pastiche to me rather than new music) but I do know quite a bit of the music the author is seeking to denigrate objectively. It is only when I know the music quite well that I know how to relate to a theoretical take on what it means and where it is going. This essay seems just too familiar in its attack on the "high priests of modernism" - a term that oozes resentment but seems to function well as a rallying call for many - but if I were to find myself liking Lloyd's music I would let the tired old critique of modernism pass and might even accept it as an explanation for why Lloyd is not more widely known and revered.
> 
> I do wonder what getting "back to meaning" might involve? You find meaning lacking in some (presumably, given the context, modernist) music and feel that returning to "classical themes" would correct this? Is this a call for more pastiche instead of following the tradition of music and art regularly renewing and reinventing itself in new ways? There can be little doubt that there will be a reaction against the presently new, and this may involve borrowing aspects of earlier aesthetics, but because it will also be even more new it will also initially be a challenge to its listeners. You can't make great music by copying or imitating old tropes.
> 
> Incidentally, new art/classical music these days is so varied that I am surprised to hear you like none of it. And if you do like some of it then why bother tilting at postmodernism, a word that seems to mean whatever we need it to mean. Perhaps, if the term is useful at all in music, it merely refers to our being able to enjoy many very different takes on what music these days should be about? But, from what I have heard, I am not sure that Lloyd's music has much of a place in any of it so a call to go "back" to that does seem extreme and depressing to me!


I was referring to the avoidance of a clear meaning or narrative in postmodern music. I was thinking of some evolving of style into a new sort of neoclassicism, not a straight imitation of old styles.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> It may be laziness on my part, but I find theorising about newer music rather tedious. For me the music comes first and I know little of Lloyd's music (a couple of samples I just tried sound like pastiche to me rather than new music) but I do know quite a bit of the music the author is seeking to denigrate objectively. It is only when I know the music quite well that I know how to relate to a theoretical take on what it means and where it is going. This essay seems just too familiar in its attack on the "high priests of modernism" - a term that oozes resentment but seems to function well as a rallying call for many - but if I were to find myself liking Lloyd's music I would let the tired old critique of modernism pass and might even accept it as an explanation for why Lloyd is not more widely known and revered.
> 
> I do wonder what getting "back to meaning" might involve? You find meaning lacking in some (presumably, given the context, modernist) music and feel that returning to "classical themes" would correct this? Is this a call for more pastiche instead of following the tradition of music and art regularly renewing and reinventing itself in new ways? There can be little doubt that there will be a reaction against the presently new, and this may involve borrowing aspects of earlier aesthetics, but because it will also be even more new it will also initially be a challenge to its listeners. You can't make great music by copying or imitating old tropes.
> 
> Incidentally, new art/classical music these days is so varied that I am surprised to hear you like none of it. And if you do like some of it then why bother tilting at postmodernism, a word that seems to mean whatever we need it to mean. Perhaps, if the term is useful at all in music, it merely refers to our being able to enjoy many very different takes on what music these days should be about? But, from what I have heard, I am not sure that Lloyd's music has much of a place in any of it so a call to go "back" to that does seem extreme and depressing to me!


I en-JOY reading comments when others say what I wish I could say with such poignancy.

I may miss some of your ideas, so please forgive for space/time considerations.

*back to meaning* FULL music to ach individual..
I've have noticed here there are 2 broad camps among us. 
The romanticists/classicists/baroquists and then the other fan club, the early/mid/late modernists groupies.

2 very broad camps which at times do make some crossovers into each others side of the ,,,MOUNTAIN RANGE,,,but are 2 distinctly sects or cults if you will.

If you look at lists here, the countless list your ,,,fill in the blank,,,sure there are similiarities within each sect,,yet no 2 individuals within each group, has the same rankings/lists..Sure the one camp as a general rule places several main composers as within the top 5 ranksing,,Beethoven ranks high, perhaps Brahms and Mahler also usually make top 5.

...Then if we go to the modernist camp,,,the lists are even more varied. I place modernism, 1900-,,I guess to today,,but honestly I end at my personal fav last 3,4,5 favorite late 20thC composers, Others veto that opinion, which is their right to do so.

Individuality is more often seen as wide ranging within the post romantic group,,and the range is less varying within the pre modern group.

I aslo believe age difference are alsoa factor. The romantic group are mostly under age 50, the mods are over 50 in general.

I forsee a time when the ones age plays little part in which group one belongs. That is to say, with YT, mod electronic uploads, now, music can be found on the Inet without a cost factor.

Younger generation;s have more choices than we ever had in the LP days.

Now you can listen to most every mod composer w/o the risk of buying a cd.

Times they area chnaigin….

I love one quote from the article..

*Romanticism began as a upswelling of creative energy, which.sought LIBERATION from TRADITIONAL forms of authority and others forms of social CONTROL*

Reminds me of The Who's tune *My Generation* Live at Leeds, *we ain't gonna take it,,never did and never will*.

There are protests, conflicts, divisions within every sector of society,,Why should classical music community be exempt from these revolutionary disruptions, convulsions?
And the old cliché , I used the other day

*we just have to agree to disagree* ain;'t gonna fly.
That term offers less than 1% skim milk.
Gotta have the cream in my cereal. 
Conflicts will arise, it is inevitable.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was referring to the avoidance of a clear meaning or narrative in postmodern music. I was thinking of some evolving of style into a new sort of neoclassicism, not a straight imitation of old styles.


Neo classicism?
No I don't forsee that happening,,,not among todays youths, They have no desires to reach backwards..
Yet some here mention my favorite late 20Th C, Henze is sort of neo classicism. 
So then again, is this what you are referring to?

Then if Henze is offering neo classicism, I will have to agree. 
So things have come full circle with Henze, bridging the old with his new. 
At least in some of his works, Remember his oeuvre is gigantic. 
Something for everyone. Listen to his early work , Undine, neo classicism par excellence. 
I love it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Music since 1900 has gone in, in, in until it imploded. Now some people want another "big bang" so it can go outward again. Maybe the internet will enable this to happen.


No I am a pessimist as to the future of classical composing. My views so often stated here, is that each age other a particular glory, ebullience of colors , textures. The modern epoch , is it still alive?
In which composer past 10 -15 years?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> It may be laziness on my part, but I find theorising about newer music rather tedious. For me the music comes first and I know little of Lloyd's music (a couple of samples I just tried sound like pastiche to me rather than new music) but I do know quite a bit of the music the author is seeking to denigrate objectively. It is only when I know the music quite well that I know how to relate to a theoretical take on what it means and where it is going. This essay seems just too familiar in its attack on the "high priests of modernism" - a term that oozes resentment but seems to function well as a rallying call for many - but if I were to find myself liking Lloyd's music I would let the tired old critique of modernism pass and might even accept it as an explanation for why Lloyd is not more widely known and revered.
> 
> I do wonder what getting "back to meaning" might involve? You find meaning lacking in some (presumably, given the context, modernist) music and feel that returning to "classical themes" would correct this? Is this a call for more pastiche instead of following the tradition of music and art regularly renewing and reinventing itself in new ways? There can be little doubt that there will be a reaction against the presently new, and this may involve borrowing aspects of earlier aesthetics, but because it will also be even more new it will also initially be a challenge to its listeners. You can't make great music by copying or imitating old tropes.
> 
> Incidentally, new art/classical music these days is so varied that I am surprised to hear you like none of it. And if you do like some of it then why bother tilting at postmodernism, a word that seems to mean whatever we need it to mean. Perhaps, if the term is useful at all in music, it merely refers to our being able to enjoy many very different takes on what music these days should be about? But, from what I have heard, I am not sure that Lloyd's music has much of a place in any of it so a call to go "back" to that does seem extreme and depressing to me!


Many of the greatest innovators of new music actually wrote about it. Debussy for example.


----------

