Agreed. Gould is very good at what she prescribes, but it’s a very narrow view of the musical world. It’s great that Dorico follows her lead, as they certainly could have done much worse (look at any of the Finale templates included with v27 that came out yesterday for example), but as Dorico matures, I really hope its options continue to expand to incorporate conventions beyond the confines of Gould’s book. I posted 4 images above - marching band, jazz, Broadway, and education - where Dorico is meeting Gould’s standards, but is deficient in these other genres and unable to easily replicate those results. And that’s only referencing current standards. As Dorico evolves to incorporate some more archaic notational standards, other settings will need to be incorporated or allowed as well. Obviously none of this is magic and there are substantial time and development costs to all of this that must be weighed.
I do not discount her incredible knowledge nor do I claim I could do any better. I asked for her book as a christmas present as soon as it came out and I reference it regularly. But, and others can correct me if I’m wrong, I believe it is ultimately an über style guide. She obviously references plenty of conventions and many of her examples of what is right and what is wrong is spot on, and should be observed by everyone. But other things are indeed preferences based on her own house style.
I jokingly refer to the book as “the bible” (as do many others) but there are still large holes. A whole book could be written just on keyboard writing, for instance. She had to necessarily limit herself (and the book is big to begin with!). So as highly as I regard it, it is not, nor cannot be (nor pretends to be) the be-all-end-all.
To be honest, Laurent, I prefer the original. I perceive the two notations differently and would approach playing them differently. Grace notes and triplets are not the same in my book.
I suppose this might work for some things, but for people as concise and clear as Mozart or Haydn, I’m not sure I’d agree with this approach. Conversely, I also don’t believe in making music complicated or dense just for the sake of it.
That was my impression too, that it basically grew out of the Faber style guide.
And that’s the point: different publishers can approach problems differently, but a single publisher (Faber) has to decide on one approach for a given situation.
As Dorico started formulating its routines, it makes sense that it would make use of a widely accepted standard like the Gould book as a guide (while looking at alternative approaches) before expanding to include/allow alternate widely accepted approaches further down the roadmap.
As Daniel has said, working on one area means delaying work on another. Presumably the Team will take another look at this area when it reaches the top of the “to do” list (which Daniel has also said, if I may paraphrase, does not depend on who makes the most noise).
I will admit that the Gould solution to time and key signatures vis a vis repeats was unfamiliar to me, but since I do not have to report to an employer to set the standards I use, I can live with the current implementation until another is available.