Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 58
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Like in the previous bar, it is probably the engraver's inattention that is responsible for the absence of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we suggest adding accents after similar motifs in the next bars. The intention that the entire progression should be provided with unified accents is confirmed by the accents in analogous bar 292. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 68-70
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The staccato dots over the quavers in the R.H. in the second halves of these bars are an arbitrary revision of GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 68-70
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the dynamic markings in bars 68 and 70, although of clearly different lengths in the sources, are to be interpreted in the same way due to the affinity of those bars. It is the long accent that was sometimes reproduced in a similar manner; we give such accents in the main text. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 72-73
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE (→EE), the reversed accent is probably a mistake of the engraver, which is indicated by the common accent in analogous bar 300. Therefore, in the main text we give an accent both in this and in the next bar, like Chopin marked it in bars 300-301. There is also a possibility that the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Sign reversal |
in #
in bar 72 in 
