![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 31-32
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
It is uncertain whether Chopin considered the
The category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||||||
b. 33-44
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we reproduce the dynamic hairpin strictly on the basis of A. In FE the signs were generally slightly extended, however, in the first five bars they can be considered to be compatible with A. In turn, the In the previous manuscripts there are no signs of this kind (in the entire Waltz – cf. bar 1), there is also no accent in bar 39. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||||
b. 39-40
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||||||
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
EEC overlooked the accent on the 1st quaver of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |