Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give a long accent after FE. An accent – short – is also in EE, which means that the sign was most probably added by Chopin in the base texts to these editions or that the copyist accidentally omitted it. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
We preserve the notation of GC, in which the accent (long) is not related to category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
Lack of the staccato signs in GC (→GE1) may be a result of the copyist's inattention. The wedges in GE2 (→GE3) were most probably added by analogy to bar 64. Lack of wedge in the L.H. in FE – unless it is a common oversight – does not mean that the quaver in the L.H. is to be performed differently than the one in the R.H. In this kind of homogeneous texture, Chopin did not always use to mark the articulation of the L.H. separately. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
Lack of the wedge for the L.H. may correspond to the notation of the base text to FE, however, it cannot be excluded that the engraver confused the wedge for a fingering numeral. In the remaining sources the wedges are present in the parts of both hands (except for GE1, in which the signs were undoubtedly misinterpreted as staccato dots). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 67
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give the long accent written in GC and printed in this form also in FE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
in 
