Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The clear long accent in A was omitted in FE (→GE). It is not certain how it appeared in EE, as guessing such a detail by the reviser seems to be an incredibly lucky coincidence. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We consider the mark of A, which is quite unclear, as a long accent. The atypical notation probably stems from lack of space caused by the corrections performed one line above. This could also have been a reason for the mark's omission in the editions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the editions the staccato dot written by Chopin in A was omitted. Most probably it is a result of an oversight of the engraver of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We suggest to mark the bass note with a wedge after the chord in the R.H. The need for unified articulation in this context is undeniable. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
