mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 5

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

No marks in AI

Short accent in GE & EE, probable reading of A

Dot & accent in FE

Possible interpretation of A
..

In the sources, the indications concerning the e1 crotchet are unclear. The fact of shifting the accent in A to the right may be considered as an irrelevant inaccuracy of notation or a suggestion of the sign's length. The version of FE seems to be even more puzzling, especially given the fact that it was most probably corrected – over the stave, to the right of the note there are visible possible traces of deletion of the accent. It is also unclear why the staccato dot was not included neither in GE nor in EE.
In the main text we give a short accent over the note, which combines the most definite elements of the notation of the sources. Alternatively, due to the melodic context, we suggest a long accent here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

Short accents in GC (→GE)

Long accents in FE & EE
..

The accents in GC (→GE) do not show varied features in these bars and are shorter than, e.g., the ones in GC in bars 9-10. In turn, in FE, and particularly in EE, the first five signs are clearly longer than the sixth one. It is hard to determine how this difference occurred and, as a consequence, what was Chopin's intention in this regard. Therefore, in the main text we reproduce the notation of the basic source, i.e. GC. See also bars 107-108.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

3 short accents in FE (→GE,EE)

3 long accents suggested by the editors
..

In all sources, 3 subsequent accents in bars 5-6 are short. We consider it to be an inaccuracy of the engraver and suggest long accents in the main text:

  • long notes – in this case dotted g1 minims – are generally provided with long accents by Chopin;
  • the motif at the end of bar 5 is a repetition of the motif in bar 4, in which a long accent is unquestionable in FE.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

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

b. 6-7

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

Long accents in A

Different accents in FE & EE3 (→EE4)

One accent in EE2

Short accents in GE
..

Two long accents visible in A were reproduced in FE (→EE; in EE2 the accent in bar 7 was overlooked) in varied ways. GE includes short accents in both bars. There is no reason to assume that Chopin interfered with any of the versions.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 6

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

No mark in CDP & EE

Short accent in AI & GE

Long accent in A

 in FE
..

Neither in AI nor in A is the type of accent Chopin thought of here clear. The sign is visibly shorter in AI than in A, therefore, we interpret it as a short and long accent, respectively. This is how we give it in the main text. According to us, it is highly likely that a long accent was written also in the base text to FE, reproduced inaccurately as .

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents