Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 464
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems that the accents here and in bar 469 were misplaced in FE. In the discussed bar, the mark was probably supposed to concern the crotchet in the L.H. Such an interpretation was adopted in GE3; however, it is only one of a few possibilities, out of which all the major ones are represented in the sources. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 466-470
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we preserve the version of FE (→GE1→GE2), devoid of accents in the L.H. in bars 466 and 470. In EE, accents were added in both bars, in GE3 – only in bar 470. We consider the additions to be unjustified due to the function of this bar in the structure of the two- and four-bar section – see bar 458. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 467
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the absence of a staccato mark over the 1st quaver is an oversight. In the main text, we suggest a wedge, since it appears in the majority of similar places. The mark was added here already in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 468-469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we suggest adding long accents after analogous bars 460-461 and 456-457 and 464-465. Accents (short) were added already in EE as well as in GE3. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems likely that the accent in FE (→GE1→GE2) was placed over a wrong note (instead of over the dotted g category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
2-g