Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpins written by Chopin in one of the last proofreadings of FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||
b. 36-38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give the dots with which Chopin provided all quavers in these bars in FEcor. Ap also has dots, yet only over two bass notes in bar 38. See also bar 37. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The sign in Ap may be, according to us, interpreted as an accent (short?) or . All three signs of this type in bars 38-39 look like short accents, yet only the one in the L.H. in bar 39 is clearly put under the note it concerns. In the main text we do not consider this ambiguous sign. Similarly in bar 39. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||||||
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The mark in Ap may be, according to us, interpreted as an accent (short or long?) or . Similarly as in bar 38, in the main text we do not consider this ambiguous mark. The hairpin was arbitrarily added in EE3 (→EE4), certainly after bar 4. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||||||
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 |