![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 124-125
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In GE the short category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
b. 141-143
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
b. 159-160
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 160
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The mark in AF, in spite of its excessive size, could be considered a long accent if it were not for an even longer mark in analogous b. 168. Due to this reason, in the main text we keep the form of this mark written in AF, which, according to Chopin, could have been supposed to emphasise not only the minim, but also its modulating continuation. The absence of the mark in EE probably means that it was overlooked in the proof copy of FE. Then the long accent printed in the finished FE would be a result of Chopin's proofreading. A similar situation can be found in b. 168. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
b. 166
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The range of the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »