Does someone like George Lloyd fit this site? Although somewhat contemporary, I believe he wrote his music in a more "Romantic" type style. Or is he just not "unsung"? I hadn't heard of him, but that's pretty much par for the course with me it seems!
He definitely fits, I would say. He's been quite extensively recorded, but is very rarely performed in public. His music is certainly approachable - although for me there's a lot of 'water' in the mix...
What do others think of Lloyd?
I used to enjoy the 7th when I was young. The finale was very ott and very loud
with what seemed like moments from Star Wars thrown in for good measure!
The renewal of interest in George Lloyd,whatever you think of his music,certainly
provoked some interesting debate at the time, ie tonal v avant guarde/atonal.
I have definitely liked what I have heard thusfar.
When you say "a lot of 'water' in the mix..." what do you mean? Is it lacking in some depth from your standpoint?
Thanks!
I quite like John Loyd's music, but would't go out of my way to hear it. Albany Troy Records have produced quite a number of CDs of his symphonies etc together with those of his American contemporary, Don Gillis, which also make for enjoyable listening.
I don't like his music at all. A few years back there was a bunch of CDs released on Albany and they all kept getting good reviews...but I never could get into it.
(also, he was British, not American like the post above me says. Also, Gillis I love)
Don Gillis. Now you're talking!!!! I have all his symphonies on cd. Yet no one ever
mentions him & Gramophone didn't review any of the Albany cd's.
I'm afraid I find his music a bit anaemic. Easy on the ear, but ever so slightly boring. "A lot of water in the mix" just about sums it up - at least for me.
I can vouch for the Don Gillis pick!
I went through a George Lloyd phase a couple of years back but, like Alan and Gareth, now feel that he is way too fond of the sound of his own voice. There's little in any of his 40-50 minute symphonies which couldn't be said in 20 minutes or fewer by a more self-critical composer. Comparison of his work with that of Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski, for example, makes the point. Lloyd is certainly a pleasant, and sometimes, stirring listen; nothing to frighten the horses in his idiom.
Don Gillis is a very different kettle of fish. If I want a dose of brash, in your face, polished chrome and cheerleader Americana, then I'll turn to Gillis. Great fun, when you're in the mood.
Some of the Don Gillis symphonies show some unexpected depths. Symphonies 6
& 5,in particular.Quite impressive in their own way.
Thanks to this thread I've just spent twelve odd quid on his Seventh symphony;
the only one I didn't have,apart from Symphony No x!
Quote from: Pengelli on Friday 18 September 2009, 12:51
Thanks to this thread I've just spent twelve odd quid on his Seventh symphony;
the only one I didn't have,apart from Symphony No x!
I think I have this forum to thank for introducing me to Gillis and so many more! It's amazing how small of a "composer universe" I had not that long ago. So much music...so little time....
Quote from: monafam on Friday 18 September 2009, 16:55So much music...so little time....
Indeed. Sometimes I refrain from listening to something in fear that I may like it enough to want to hear more and be forced to spend more money and space!
If anyone thinks that Don Gillis is just light music & high jinks do get hold of the
Albany cd of his symphonies 5 & 6. You may be suprised! Highly recommended.
This seems to be turning into a Don Gillis thread. Shame on Shamophone for
being too snooty to review the Albany cd's. (Thank you Classics Today!)
Quote from: Pengelli on Saturday 19 September 2009, 10:48
This seems to be turning into a Don Gillis thread. Shame on Shamophone for
being too snooty to review the Albany cd's. (Thank you Classics Today!)
That's ok about this becoming Gillis', threads have a way of going off and evolving in their own way at time. Besides, it sounds like, while many tolerate Lloyd, he may be someone "unsung" for reasons pertaining to the issues people raised above. I still like what I've heard though, but it's not making any of my Top 10 lists! :)
Yes,it's funny about Lloyd.There was a sort of huge flurry of interest around him some
years ago;then as soon as most of his stuff got recorded it all seemed to fade away.
A cautionary tale,perhaps? Actually,another similair case springs to mind.Berthold
Goldschmidt. All that surge of praise and interest,and then nothing.............
I just got the Albany cd of Gillis's 7th,the other day.One of his best.He REALLY
could write 'serious' music when he wanted to. Eat your heart out Copland!
I have all of Lloyd's (12) symphonies and they are a mixed bag. You never know quite what to expect but I am very glad I have them. The 4th, 5th and 11th may be the best.
Some sections of the music are as painfully banal as a operettas(The first symphony with big tunes comes to mind) and yet are definitely worth the listen for many touching and memorable moments. Obviously, the music is never high-minded, esoteric, oblique or academic.
Lloyd's forte are his concerti, they are top shelf, with more consistency and a higher level of inspiration and the absence of any banality. Violin(2), piano(4) and cello, all excellent.
The Symphonic Mass is a glorious creation, and the Suite from "The Serf" is also a must-hear.
Nice to see someone sticking up for him!