b. 7
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The tie of c3 must be an arbitrary decision of Kolberg or Szulc. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Revisions in EL |
|||||||||
b. 7
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||
b. 8
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The concordant text of A1 and CJ leaves no doubts that it was also [A2] that featured f here. Therefore, the d note present in CK (→CB) and EL is a result of an arbitrary decision and most likely Kolberg's mistake, doubled by the use of abridged notation and reproduced by further copying. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Terzverschreibung error , Kolberg's revisions |
|||||||||
b. 8
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
It is difficult to interpret the mark in CJ – it has uneven arms, as a result of which it is uncertain when it should begin, while its ending falls within the 2nd half of the bar, written using abridged notation, which hampers the estimation of its range. Moreover, the absence of the mark in the remaining sources, and particularly in CK, which is based on the same source, suggests that it could have been entered by mistake – the first halves of b. 8-9 are graphically very similar, which could have confused the copyist. According to us, assuming that the mark was present in [A2], we consider a long accent to be the most likely interpretation. Due to the described doubts, in the main text we give this accent in a variant form. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC |
|||||||||
b. 9
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The absence of the mark in CB is most probably an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources |