Issues : Long accents
|
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The accent in the 1st half of this bar may be interpreted as short or long in A. The second possibility is indicated by the even shorter accent in the L.H. in the 2nd half of the bar and by the melodic context. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The accent in the 1st half of the bar may be interpreted as long or short in A. A clearly longer sign is written also in AI. On the other hand, a comparison with analogous accents in the 2nd half of this bar and in bars 1-2 suggests the second possibility and this is how the sign was understood in FE (→GE,EE). According to us, the context, particularly the harmonic one, can justify distinguishing this note with a longer accent. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 7-10
|
composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor
..
Three out of four accents in GC are undoubtedly long accents, the fourth one (in bar 8) may be interpreted as either long or short. In GE they were reproduced as short. EE includes distinct long accents in all these bars, FE – only in bars 9-10, yet the one in bar 7 may also be considered as long. Therefore, it seems that the use of long accents by Chopin is much more likely here. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In A, the difference in notation of the two R.H. accents in this bar is very pronounced. Nevertheless, the second one - the long one - was in GE (→FE→EE) reproduced as a short one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The accent sign in FE is clearly different than in bars 1-2. Most probably, according to Chopin's intentions, it was supposed to be a long accent. Both in GE and in EE it was rendered as a casual short accent. In GE4 (→GE5) the sign was omitted, which was probably a mistake. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
