On 26 May 2004 at 14:15, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > > An acciacatura differs from a rolled chord in that it contains an > >> additional, dissonant note that unlike the chord itself is not > >> sustained beyond the completion of the roll. (Technically, the > >> acciacatura consists only of the dissonant note itself, not the > >> chord into which it is introduced.) > > > >But the slash does not exclusively indicate anything but the rolled > >chord. The added dissonance is not implied by that symbol itself, but > >by the context. > > Well, like everything else in Bq. notation, this varied among > different composers, times, places, but in, for example, the WTC, a > slashed chord means an acciacatura, while a plain rolled chord is > indicated w. a vertical wavy line, as today. Similarly in Couperin, > for example.
Well, you've changed the context I was citing, which was in Mozart, where there is no wavy line for a rolled chord, only the slash. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
