Issues : Long accents
|
b. 470
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The mark in A bears all the hallmarks of a long accent. In spite of that, both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) it was reproduced as a common short accent, which, according to us, may be considered an acceptable variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||
|
b. 473
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the accent in this bar is clearly shorter than in adjacent bars (there is a similar situation in bar 477). However, taking into account the fact that the note provided with that accent is a delay in the form of an appoggiatura, we suggest a long accent in the main text, more frequent in this context. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||||||
|
b. 475
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing accent does not have to be considered an oversight in this case – cf. the twin phrases of this three-part progression (bars 473 and 477). Therefore, in the main text we suggest a long accent in accordance with the interpretation adopted in the mentioned bars. An accent (short) was added in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 477
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Just like in bar 473, we suggest a long accent in the main text, assuming an inaccurate reproduction of the Chopinesque mark in [A]. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||||||
|
b. 483
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
A comparison with analogous bar 487 proves that two category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
in 
