|
|
|
|
Differences in dynamic markings for bars 6-20 that appear in the sources make us wonder whether we are dealing here with the evolution of the concept of dynamics or merely with making the notation more precise. In the editors' opinion, there are more arguments to support the latter hypothesis, as:
- the chords struck in bars 6-7 and analogous bars stand out naturally from among the surrounding motifs by the changed register, number of notes and length of sounds; their accented, culminating function stems from the very structure of the music;
-
the
marks may be interpreted as long accents, each time embracing the motif of a fast repeated chord; -
repeating the
in bars 9 and 17 (even without the preceding 
, as is the case in GC) also indirectly indicates that the dynamics of bars 6-8 and analogous bars is different.
In the light of the above, the aim of the markings seems only to be making the notation more precise, which was partly realized in FE, and fully in EE.
The place in which we could suspect possible modification of the concept of dynamics of the introduction is in bars 17-18 of FE. The absence of here may, unless it is simply an error, mean leaving the forte dynamics in those bars. That version, locally acceptable, seems less fortunate in the longer perspective, as it weakens the effect of the four-bar motif (bars 21-24) introducing the main theme of the Scherzo.
category imprint: Differences between sources
notation: Verbal indications
Back to note