Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The articulation detail written in A could have been overlooked in FE. In spite of this, we prefer the notation of the editions, as in analogous situation in bar 57 Chopin already did not mark the separation of the bass note. The fingering also does not suggest an interruption of the passage's continuity. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The accent of A could have been overlooked in FE (→GE,EE), therefore, in the main text we give it in brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In EE4 a mark was arbitrarily added under the figuration in the L.H. (in spite of the authentic dim.). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
b. 19-23
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
For each source we give the pairs of hairpins appearing under similar figures in the L.H. in the unified version. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The hairpins, written in A in the 2nd half of the bar, were printed in FE – certainly by mistake – under the chord in the middle of the bar. The unnatural in this context detail was removed in GE3 (→GE4). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |