[r-t] New Alan Reading Composition

[Mark Davies]

Yes, I agree that 81234567 is much more impressive than 81235764, 
although the latter should still sound good in context. But the point 
is, it sounds amazing not because there's a 4-run or even a 7-run in the 
middle, but because there's the great fat tenor note first *then* the 
treble-led run; and that this isn't something you get every day.

Reducing the thing to counting 4-runs is, to my mind, missing the point 
of cyclic. Of course, I understand that here the cyclic construction is 
probably just the means to the end of getting the 4-runs in. But since 
you've got a cyclic composition, why not appreciate the cyclic music in 
it? From that point of view, a lead with e.g. 81234576 in it is not a 
lead with no music - it's a lead with some of the very best of cyclic 
music in it.

MBD