Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the face of the category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing staccato mark must be considered here an inaccuracy of notation – cf. the three further analogous bars (bars 132, 136 and 140). category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 130-143
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the majority of the accents in bars 130-131 and analog. are long accents – 7 out of 11 (compared to 2 short and 2 ambiguous); the ratio in GE1 (→GE2) is similar. Taking into consideration the fact that the Chopinesque mark of a long accent was not considered by the engravers to be a long accent but rather a short one or a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge in GE3 may be an oversight; however, it cannot be excluded that the mark was removed on purpose, taking into account the absence of similar marks in analogous bars in GE1 (→GE2). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 136
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. There is a similar situation in bar 140. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
] suggested by the editors
mark). 
hairpin, we regard such a representation as a proof that Chopin meant long accents in this place.
