data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The missing accent in FE (→EE1) could be blamed on the copyist's oversight, since the mark written on the stave is poorly visible in A. Nevertheless, since in bar 135, in a similar context, the visible A accent is also absent in FE, it is more likely that both marks were added to A after the basis for FE, that is [FC], had been finished. GE reproducing the accent as short is a frequent inaccuracy concerning long accents. The short EE2 accent was repeated after GE1.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, EE revisions, Errors in FE, Inaccuracies in GE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins