Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 46
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
As in bar 14, of which this bar is a non-written-out repetition, the missing accent in FE and EE is most probably due to the engravers' oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 49-50
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
The absence of the hairpins is most probably due to the EE engraver's inattention. They are also missing in the next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
||||||||
b. 51-52
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
In GE (→FE,EE,IE) the hairpins were inaccurately reproduced in this bar, repeating the scheme from the preceding bars. In the main text we provide the A notation, certainly well thought out. In EE the hairpins were omitted, as in the preceding bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 58-60
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
When interpreted literally, the pairs of dynamic marks in these bars look like a crescendo and an accent. However, the comparison with an analogous phrase in bars 49-52 and with bar 57 proves that – which was already noticed in GE (→FE,EE,IE) – Chopin intended them to be pairs of . Such situations explain, to a certain extent, the engravers' general tendency to prolong dynamic hairpins. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 65
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
The extended hairpin in GE (→FE,IE) is due to the GE engraver, who would often perform such revisions to hairpins in this Sonata. In EE1 the mark was overlooked, which was corrected in EE2, on the basis of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , GE revisions |