On 14/11/2021 14:54, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
That question has a more specific answer: According to Gould, one of them is
not just “more natural” but*correct*, and the other is not just “less natural”
but*incorrect*.;)
When dividing any note duration, there is a specific formula when to move from
one sub-duration to the next smaller sub-duration (e.g. in tuplets of varying
number). Those rules, of course, apply equally to the note-glyph used in the
denominator of a time signature. Naturally, Lilypond can’t force someone to use
the “correct” engraving — but that doesn’t change the fact that there are clear
rules as to how to properly engrave such things!
PLEASE DO NOT USE GOULD TO DEFINE CORRECT.
Yes she defines the STANDARD, but most of what I engrave is "turn of
last century". That pre-dates her!
So in fact, what she says does not apply to Classical Music, nor does it
apply to the majority of classical music!
Cheers,
Wol
