Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 53
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||
b. 55
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In the main text we include the hairpin written in A1 in a variant form. The mark seems to harmonise with the dynamic indications of GE; however, it cannot be ruled out that Chopin did not see the need to place that mark here. See also b. 56. The hairpin was not reproduced correctly in any of the three editions stemming from A1. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||
b. 56
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
According to us, the mark in A1, although it could be considered a long accent (as it was interpreted in FE1), could be a diminuendo, hence we leave it with its actual length. In the main text we give the mark in brackets, since it is absent in GE, from which in the next bar comes; moreover, it is also uncertain whether Chopin would have considered it compliant with the dynamic markings of GE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||||
b. 73-75
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
We give three possible interpretations of the accents of A1 in these bars, including also the notation of analogous b. 81-83 in A1 and GE1, based on [A2]. The short accents of the editions most probably result from the engravers' routine interpretation of the markings. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||
b. 76
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The mark in A1 is clearly longer than the accents in the previous 3 bars as well as than the marks in b. 81-83. In spite of that, according to us, it is to be interpreted as a long accent, which is indicated by its unequivocal graphic relationship with the b minim. Marks of similar length are featured in A1 as long accents, e.g. in b. 6 or 26. The short accent in the editions is most probably an inaccuracy (and certainly in FE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »