Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing staccato dot in AF (→FE→EE) must be an oversight of Chopin – in the very AF, dots are present in analogous b. 20 and 116. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||||
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The hairpin was used to specify the notation and was introduced by Chopin probably in [AG] (→GE). However, according to us, it is likely that the beginning of the mark was reproduced inaccurately, which is indicated by the beginning of the respective mark of AF in analogous b. 117-118. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
|||||||||||||
b. 27-30
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in b. 25, the hairpins in b. 27 and 28-30 specify the notation and were introduced by Chopin probably in [AG] (→GE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||||
b. 29-31
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the most accurate indications of GE1, most probably corresponding to the notation of [AG]. The minor differences in the range of the signs in FE, EE and GE2 bear hallmarks of inaccuracies and have a negligible impact on the meaning of the marks. See also b. 31. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we take into account the accent of GE1 – it is most probably a clarification entered into [AG]. The absence of the mark in GE2 is most probably an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |