|
Accents & |
|
|
||
|
Different accents in FE |
|
|
Different R.H. & L.H. accents in EE |
|
|
||
|
Long accents, our alternative suggestion |
in Despite significant differences in the length of the marks in b. 250, 252, 254 & 256 visible in A, we consider all of them to be accents. The mark in b. 250 in itself could be regarded as a long accent; however, in the context of two subsequent ones, we interpret it as a short accent. Due to the reasons discussed in analogous b. 118-124, in the main text we give a notation unified with four short accents; such a solution was also applied in GE2 (→GE3). The two missing marks in FC (→GE1) are most probably an oversight, while the changes introduced in EE, with differentiated accents for both hands and vertical accents, the latter being typical of that edition – a revision.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: Long accents, EE revisions, Inaccuracies in GE, GE revisions
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins