Issues : Long accents
|
b. 485-486
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the virtuoso panache and brilliance require rather accents than diminuendos, hence in the main text we interpret all marks of A as accents (long and short). The category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 486-487
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the accents added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) on c in bar 486 and on C in bar 487. In turn, it is not clear what kind of accents Chopin had in mind, since it is difficult to assume that he would have liked to differentiate between them. According to us, it is long accents that are more likely, since a shift of the shorter sign (in bar 486) may indicate that the accent written by Chopin was longer than the one printed in FE. However, it is only a suspicion, hence both the long accents suggested in the main text and the short accents in EE may be considered equal variants. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 486
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in analogous b. 478, A features here a long accent, although its length seems to be less distinct than there. Nevertheless, it was reproduced as a long one not only in FC, but also in FE, which previously contained a short accent. To the main text we adopt a long accent, in accordance with b. 478 and with a slightly longer articulation of these octaves marked by Chopin with rhythmic values: these are minims, and not staccato crotchets, such as in, e.g. the next two bars. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 487
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The accent in A at the beginning of the bar, considered in the context of this bar, is long, yet compared with the marks in the two previous bars, it may also be interpreted as a short one. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 492-493
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A there is a clear difference between the long accents in the R.H. and the short accent on A in b. 493. It is noticeable in FC, yet it may easily be considered insignificant, related to natural imperfection of handwriting, which explains the unification of the marks in GE. It is even more difficult to assess the marks in FE; in the entire section, which begins here, the differences between the accents, although visible, do not seem to signalise a different meaning. In the discussed bars we assume that these are long accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
& 
in 
