[r-t] New Alan Reading Composition

[Alan Reading]

You make a fair point Mark; as I said I found the 6781's surprisingly nice.
One thing is for sure though 8123's sound much better when the 4 bells in
question are Taylors 1920 as opposed to Llewellins & James 1914 followed by
three Thomas I Bilbie 1739! :-)

Ander I think there are 18 leads without any internal 4-bell runs, none of
them consecutive and at most 3 per part.

On 11 December 2012 21:35, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> 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
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/**mailman/listinfo/ringing-**theory_bellringers.net<http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20121211/f85b1a8b/attachment.html>