Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The mark written in A under the first chord has a form of a typical long accent. Despite this fact, in the main text we suggest category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 63-65
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The accents in the R.H. at the beginning of these bars, despite their unimpressive size, display a form which is characteristic rather of long accents. The marks in FE, and in bar 63 also in EE, may also be considered as long. In the remaining situations, we see short accents in the sources. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The long accent included in A was reproduced in FE (→EE) as a short one. In GE the mark was omitted. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 68
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
According to us, the long accent would be more appropriate here than the short accent of A, which we consider as written inaccurately (cf. bar 66). In FE (→GE,EE) the sign was not included at all, which can be considered to be justified due to the less intense dynamics in bars 67-68 in comparison with bars 65-66. Taking this into account, in the main text we leave the application of the accent at the performer's discretion. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
Contrary to FE (→GE,EE3), we consider the accent in A to be a long one. In EE4 the mark was omitted. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
suggested by the editors
