[r-t] New Alan Reading Composition
mark at snowtiger.net
Tue Dec 11 21:35:47 UTC 2012
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.
More information about the ringing-theory