Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
In FE (→EE), the first quaver of the first triplet is also provided with a staccato dot, doubtless due to oversight. In the edited text we repeat the notation of GE and do not double staccato dots in the octaves. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
In the editors' opinion, the placement of accents in GE does not necessarily reflect the notation of [A]. If Chopin wrote accents between the staves (like in the preceding bar) then the signs could overlap with the slur and Lack of signs in FE (→EE) is certainly a mistake.
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
In EE, the shape of the R.H. accents was arbitrarily changed. The same situation can be found in bar 93. We adopt the notation of GE (→FE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 71
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
Discrepancies in the marking of the note a
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 71
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
what in turn could prompt the engraver to shift them below the lower staff. Accents could also be placed on the lower staff below b
, as that type of notation is present in Chopin’s autographs. For that reason we suggest placing accents in a way that most probably is in keeping with Chopin's script or equivalent to it.
in 
1 in bar 71 with an ornament should be analysed with taking into account the analogy with bars 
only in bar. 75. In that context both markings mean the same, yet it is not clear whether Chopin ultimately wanted to have 
