Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The accents in A are undoubtedly long here, which was, however, erroneously reproduced in FE (→GE). In EE the second mark was omitted, certainly by accident. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE |
|||||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
Extension of the marks in the editions stem from the engravers' inaccuracy and manners. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The omission of the mark by the engraver seems to be the most plausible reason for the missing accent in FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||
|
b. 43-48
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
We interpret the accents of A in bars 43, 46-48 as long ones. In the editions they were generally reproduced as short, while the mark in bar 48 was totally omitted (the engraver's distraction – see the remark on the rhythmic error). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
Allegedly, the mark of A was supposed to have a similar range as in the significantly less carefully written bars 5 and 13. The notation of A shows signs of underdevelopment and haste in this aspect, e.g., lack of the tie sustaining g (while the tie of e
The character of the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE |
in 
in 
1 is marked only in bar 44, at the end of the line), lack of the dot extending the e