Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[Wols Lists]

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