Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 150
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||
b. 152
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the main text we suggest a long accent after an analogous situation in b. 150. The mark was also added in EE; however, a short accent was used (like in the vast majority of cases). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 153-157
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
FE feature long accents under the last quaver in b. 153, 154 and 156. GE reproduced them as a short hairpin, reaching the 1st quaver of the next bar, which does not influence its meaning in this case (Chopin would sometimes use such notation in two-note motifs). The notation of EE is inaccurate (the use of short accents) and arbitrary (the marks having been doubled in the L.H. part, probably suggested by the authentic notation on the 2nd quaver of these bars). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||
b. 155
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing staccato mark must be an inaccuracy. In the main text we suggest a wedge, like in the analogous bars. Staccato was also marked in EE, yet with a dot, like in the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 155
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing accent in FE (→GE) is probably an inaccuracy related to the transition to a new line. The mark was added in EE (as a short accent). In the main text we suggest a long accent, like in analogous motifs. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |