Issues : Long accents
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
No accents in GC (→GE) is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist, who overlooked all signs between the staves in bars 7-13. The length of the 1st accent is confirmed by the notation of FE in bar 196, being a repetition of bar 8, and clearly longer signs in similar bar 28. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 8-16
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
We reproduce the accents in b. 8, 11 and 16 as long ones, although the marks in FE cannot be unequivocally classified as long or short accents (however, they are clearly longer than the accents in b. 52 or 55-62). Long accents are strongly supported by the musical context: the accentuated e3 in b. 8 is the longest and top-most note of the 8-bar phrase, while the syncopated c3 in b. 11 is a similar type of climax of the final melodic section of this phrase. We encounter a similar problem in the evaluation of the accents in GE1: it is only the clearly shorter marks in b. 52 (as well as a greater number thereof in the Polonaise) that convince us to consider them long. The marks in EE and GE2 (→GE3) must be short. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
|
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. 8-16
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A, the 5 accents at the beginning of the R.H. quaver figures are of different length – the shortest are in b. 10 and 12, while the longest – in b. 14 and 16. However, all of them are provided with a slender shape, typical of long accents. As there is no reason to differentiate between the accents (and the last two are undoubtedly long), we interpret all of them as long; this is also the shape in which we give them in the main text. In FE, it is only the last accent that is clearly longer (in b. 16); in the remaining editions the marks were standardised as common short accents. The issue of distinguishing between those two types of accents, not always possible to unequivocally decide, is present throughout the entire Ballade and is also to be found in many other works by Chopin. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 8-16
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The accent in bar 8 entered into FC is undoubtedly a long accent. Therefore, it allows us to consider the less unambiguous accent placed in a similar context in bar 16 to be long too. Both marks were almost certainly added by Chopin. In GE all accents in this Mazurka are more or less of the same length, and we reproduce them as short. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FC |
in 
