Issues : Long accents
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give a long accent on the basis of clear handwritten entry by Chopin in FEcor. The sign in FE (→GE1) is significantly shorter, yet it can still be considered a long accent. Later GE and EE already have a common short accent (except for EE2, in which the sign was overlooked). The accent under the part of the L.H. in Ap should also be considered as rather a short one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
According to us, the mark written by Chopin in FEcor is a long accent, same as in analogous bar 17. An unequivocal long accent is also in Ap. In FE (→GE1→GE2) the mark was interpreted as hairpins, which, in this case, cannot be considered as an inaccuracy. In EE2 and GE3 (→GE4→GE5) the sign was omitted, whereas in EE3 (→EE4) a long (!?) accent was added. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The dynamic markings visible in Ap at the end of these bars should be unequivocally interpreted as long accents, taking into account the context of the one-and-a-half-bar long crescendo. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
According to us, both accents in Ap should be interpreted as long ones, which is confirmed by undoubtedly long accents written by Chopin in FEcor. In FE (→GE,EE) they were rendered as common short accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »