Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpins on the basis of A. The marks, written by Chopin's hand and coherent with the indications of the analogous phrase in bars 25-26, do not raise any doubts. Moving the mark under the stave in FE (→GE,EE) could have been a result of graphic difficulties (lack of space), yet this extension cannot be explained in this way. Perhaps Chopin introduced the mark in a proofreading of FE, as he wanted to prepare the beginning of the longer crescendo in bars 29-31 more clearly. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
We interpret the mark as a long accent due to its position over the note and lack of the preceding it mark. In the editions it was moved between the thirds of the upper voice, which was certainly performed by the engraver of FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Long accents |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
In EE2 the mark was omitted and in EE3 (→EE4) it was added in the form of a long accent over the octave in the L.H. In GE3 (→GE4→GE5) the hairpins occupy the entire 1st half of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
||||||||
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The accent in A resembles a short one with its shape, yet its size indicates rather a long one. FE (→GE) include a short accent, while in EE the mark took the form of diminuendo hairpins. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
We consider the mark added in a proofreading of FE (→GE1,EE) to be a long accent. Lack of the mark in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) is certainly a result of an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE |