Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of the staccato dots in AI is probably a reflection of a less accurate notation in this working manuscript. Nothing points to the fact that Chopin could have imagined performance of this octave passage in another articulation. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 13
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give four accents visible in FE (→GE,EE). The change of the markings' concept – with respect to AI – is also visible in the part of the R.H. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 13-15
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
At the beginning, Chopin marked the dynamic highlight of the endings of these bars with long accents (AI), which he then replaced with hairpins and the crescendo indication (editions). According to us, the indications do not have to be incompatible (cf. analogous bars 63-66), hence in the main text we suggest a possibility of considering the accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 18-26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In AI, in a section starting from bar 17 Chopin marked the staccato dots over the quavers only in the first bar. It certainly means that all subsequent quavers are also supposed to be performed with such articulation, as it was explicitly indicated in FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 20-22
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
At the end of bars 20 and 22, in the main text we suggest to combine the category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
in 
in 
suggested by the editors