Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 105
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is uncertain which type of accent Chopin considered here – the sign is significantly shorter than the next accent and a few others, but the difference to those in bars 99 and 102 is very small. Taking into account the syncopated nature of this minim and the fact that all surrounding long accents concern minims or minim-long motifs, we deem it to be long. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||
b. 106-108
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Out of two long accents under the chords in the left hand only the first was reproduced in GE1 (→FE→EE) and under the part of the R.H. EE added both accents in the L.H., probably by analogy with bars 90 and 92 and 114 and 116. GE2 restored the notation of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 107
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, it is highly likely that the missing accent under f is Chopin's neglect. Therefore, in the main text we suggest adding a respective sign after analogous bar 105. In the face of uncertainty as to the kind of the accent employed there, we also give an alternative proposal with a short accent. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||
b. 114-116
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The long accents in bars 114 and 116, perfectly reproduced in GE, are not equally legible in FE, although the difference with respect to the short accents in bar 118 is clear. In EE they were considered common, short accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||
b. 117
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |