Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The moved and shorter hairpin in GE is most probably a mistake of the engraver. There is a similar situation in CGS. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in CGS |
||||||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in CGS |
||||||||
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The difference in the length of the arms of the hairpin in A is too insignificant to hamper the identification of their range. In spite of that, the mark in FE (→EE) was led – contrary to A – to the end of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
b. 10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The arms of the hairpin in A are of a different length. In the main text we interpret it on the basis of the bottom, shorter arm, while FC (→GE) took into account rather the top one. The absence of the mark in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
Like in the previous two bars, we assume the bottom arm of the hairpin in A to be reliable. The mark is absent in all the remaining sources, which is almost certainly a result of oversights:
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A |