Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 72-73
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of signs in FE (→EE) is probably a result of a less precise marking of [A1]. The comparison with analogous bars in the entire Prelude indicates a possibility of an inaccurate (incomplete) notation also in GE. Due to that fact, in the main text we propose to complete the sign in bar 72. We also give an alternative proposition (one-and-a-half bar sign), based on the prevailing in GE way of marking similar bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Hairpins denoting continuation |
||||||||
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
It is hard to determine whether the clear difference between FE (→EE) and GE follows the equally clear difference between [A1] and [A2], as such a sign of mid-length could have been interpreted differently by the engravers of FE1 and GE. According to us, it is more likely that the hairpins recreate the notation of the autograph more accurately. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
b. 85-86
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
Both versions of the range of seem to be justified. We give priority to the version of GE, which is perhaps later. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 87-88
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The main text based on GE and FE2 and the version of FE1 present two possible interpretations of dynamic signs in this place. Shorter hairpins in EE probably result from an attempt to avoid crossing with the slur in the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Hairpins denoting continuation |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »