Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the face of the marks in analogous bars 129, 132 and 133, the missing dynamic indication in the first appearance of this passage must be considered an inaccuracy (perhaps caused by the central position of the mark). category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing staccato mark must be considered here an inaccuracy of notation – cf. the three further analogous bars (bars 132, 136 and 140). category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
b. 130-143
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the majority of the accents in bars 130-131 and analog. are long accents – 7 out of 11 (compared to 2 short and 2 ambiguous); the ratio in GE1 (→GE2) is similar. Taking into consideration the fact that the Chopinesque mark of a long accent was not considered by the engravers to be a long accent but rather a short one or a hairpin, we regard such a representation as a proof that Chopin meant long accents in this place. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge in GE3 may be an oversight; however, it cannot be excluded that the mark was removed on purpose, taking into account the absence of similar marks in analogous bars in GE1 (→GE2). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
b. 136
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. There is a similar situation in bar 140. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |