mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 300

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Long accent in A

 in GE1

 in FE (→EE)

 in GE2
..

In the main text we give the long accent written in A as the only undoubtedly authentic sign. The  hairpin in GE1, perhaps added by Chopin, can be considered to be a potentially authentic, equal variant. The versions of the remaining editions are most probably a result of inaccuracies – as in the case of FE (→EE) – or revisions (GE2).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 302-304

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Long accents in A

Short accents in GE (→FE)

Vertical accents in EE
..

The evident long accents in A in the middle of bars 302 and 304 were reproduced in GE (→FE) as short ones, whereas in EE they were changed to vertical. It is certain that none of the changes comes from Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 302

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 after  in A

Long accent under f in GE (→FE1→FE2)

Short accent in EE & FESB
..

The short  mark may be considered an accent associated with the initial  or as a diminuendo hairpin, which, in this context, practically does not influence the meaning of this mark. On the other hand, placing it under the 1st f semiquaver, as it was performed in GE (→FE,EE), must be contrary to the notation of A and Chopin's intention. The differences in the length of the mark in individual editions most probably correspond to the different interpretations of the engravers: the ones who considered it an accent, inserted a short accent (EE and FESB), while diminuendo took the form of a long accent, which is present in GE (→FE1→FE2).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 302-304

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Short accents in A (→GE) & EE2

No marks in FE (→EE1)

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the short accents in bar 302 and 304 resulted from the inaccuracy of the A notation (→GE), hence in the main text we suggest long accents, as in the preceding phrase. In EE2 the accents were added on the basis of GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 306-308

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Long accents in A

Short accents in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In A the accents in bars 306 and 308 are long, which is very clear particularly in bar 308. In spite of this, in GE1 and subsequent editions they were reproduced as short ones.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE