Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 26-28
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Omission of staccato dots under (over) the bass notes is certainly a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The accent over the trill in A is clearly shorter than long accents at the beginning and end of this bar. However, long accents in the next bars already do not contrast so expressly with the discussed sign, hence we consider its interpretation as a long accent to be most likely. The missing accent in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly an oversight. The sign was added in GE2 (as a short accent). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 30-31
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The musical sense obliges us to consider three accents at the beginning of subsequent halves of bars in A to be signs of one type. Since the first and third are undoubtedly long, we interpret the third, smaller sign, to be also long (cf. short accents in bars 32-33). In the editions all three signs were reproduced as short. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The missing dots in GE1 (→FE) is certainly an oversight. The signs were added in EE, probably by analogy (see also the adjacent note). The absence of the 2nd dot in GE2 is also a patent mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Omission of the accent in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly a mistake. The reviser of GE2 restored the sign (in the form of a short accent). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
