Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing accent in GE is most probably an oversight. One could have doubts whether the accent corresponds to Chopin's notation accurately – according to us, a short category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we suggest adding a category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Taking into account the compliance of the melodic shape and the remaining performance marks in three subsequent semiquaver groups, we consider the missing accent at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar to be an inaccuracy. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we suggest a long accent after analogous bars 48 and 95. It is a typical context for long accents, hence we can safely assume that the notation in those two bars conveys the notation of [A] in a more faithful manner. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||||
|
b. 47
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The change of direction of the dynamic hairpin is almost certainly a mistake of the engraver of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Sign reversal |
, mildly emphasisng the beginning of an ornamental figure, would be more suitable in this case. However, the notation of 
in