data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
When interpreted literally, the in FE (→GE) is puzzling, since
denotes a local dynamic climax, after which one should rather expect a diminuendo, not to mention a crescendo on one note, problematic to perform on the piano. Therefore, we are probably dealing with an inaccuracy or even a mistake. One can imagine two possibilities – the mark was misplaced (e.g. moved to the right with respect to the notation of [A]) or reversed. In the main text, we are inclined to agree with the first possibility due to a similarly distorted
hairpin in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 2nd mov., bar 84. The absence of the mark in EE1 (→EE2) seems to be an oversight, corrected in EE3.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, EE revisions, Errors in EE, Sign reversal
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins