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=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e59ea/e59ea164cc09fb20651e39bd84b5beefb140cf1e" alt=""
Although the A mark suggests the use of a short accent, in the main text we suggest a long accent due to the context of a long note, typical for long accents, additionally provided with a ten. indication (the issue of inaccurately written long accents in A – see mov. IV, bars 108-109). The editions also contain a long accent, extended, probably due to the fact that it was considered a diminuendo mark.
The absence of the mark in EE is most probably due to an oversight.
Compare the passage in the sources»
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Inaccuracies in GE, Errors in EE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins