Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The mark, having the nature of a long accent, could have been added by Chopin in the last proofreading of FE (→EE), which is suggested by its absence in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
b. 74
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Nothing indicates the authenticity of the versions of GE or EE – the first is most probably a result of an oversight, the second – a revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
||||||||||
b. 76
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 90
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing hairpin is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. There is also a possibility that Chopin added the marking in the last phase of proofreading of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||
b. 91
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
According to us, the missing wedges over the topmost notes on the 2nd and 3rd beats of the bar is an inaccuracy – cf. the wedges in analogous bar 42 as well as the precise notation in bar 89. Due to this reason, we introduce the markings added in GE to the main text, although the likelihood of them having been added by Chopin is marginal. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |