Issues : Long accents
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The missing accent in FC (→GE) resulted from the distraction of the copyist, who overlooked the marks from the entire first line of A. In FE (→EE) this long accent was reproduced as a half-bar diminuendo hairpin, which more or less corresponds to the length of the mark in A, but does not include the fact that it should be placed under the a1 crotchet only. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC |
|||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
As was the case with b. 3, in A the long accent is placed right under the note; however, in FE it was moved to the right, hence it could be interpreted as a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The missing accent in FC (→GE) must be a result of an oversight of the copyist. The short accent in EE is a typical revision of that edition, in which the majority of long accents were interpreted as diminuendo markings or short accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Errors of FC |
|||||||||
|
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
In the main text we give long accents after A (→FC). However, both FE (→EE) and GE reproduced them as short accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 64-65
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The missing accents in FC (→GE) are an oversight of the copyist. In FE (→EE) they were interpreted as short accents (like the vast majority of such marks). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC |
in 
