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. 312

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Short accents in A & EE2

Long accents in GE

Short accent in b. 314 in FE (→EE1)
..

The accent in bar 312 could have been added to A after [FC] had been finished, which is indicated by it having been placed differently than the accent in bar 314 (under and not over the octave). The type of accents can give rise to doubts, since they are slightly longer than those at the beginning of bar 311, 313 and 315. The musical context suggests that all five marks should be considered equally (they concern crotchets separated by rests), which is confirmed by the unquestionable long accents in the middle of bar 313 and 315, clearly longer than all the remaining ones. In GE the two discussed accents were reproduced as long, while in FE (→EE1) the only mark in this edition in bar 314 – as short. In EE2 both accents are short – the former on the basis of FE2, while the latter – inaccurately repeated after GE1.
Despite their differing position, once under and once over the octave, both marks in A clearly concern the L.H., hence, for the sake of clarity, we place both under the octaves. In GE both accents were placed over the octaves; moreover, it was performed in an ambiguous manner, as far as their assignment to one of the hands is concerned.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Placement of markings , GE revisions

b. 315

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Long accent in GE1

Short accent in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE2
..

It is difficult to say how accurately the notation of the manuscripts was reproduced in the editions. Both versions are, of course, possible. In the main text we give the notation of FE (→EE) due to the Chopinesque additions to the dynamic markings in this and the previous bar, introduced at the stage of proofreading of FE. The absence of the mark in GE2 is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 316

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Short accent in sources

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest a long accent due to the context, typical of such an accent, i.e. a long, syncopated note. In the absence of preserved manuscripts, we cannot verify whether this detail is compliant with the notation of [A], while in Chopin's pieces we encounter numerous examples of inaccuracies (sometimes quite manifest) in the reproduction of long accents by the editions (cf., e.g. the Prelude in F minor, Op. 28 No. 8, b. 1-2). 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 316

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Long accent in A

Short accent in GE

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

In A the accent over a3 is clearly longer than the next ones. According to us, it is an inaccuracy, since there is no reason to differentiate between accents in such homogeneous texture (a short accent is also over the L.H. minim chord in this place). GE reproduced it as a short accent. The absence of the mark in FE (→EE) could be explained by an oversight by the copyist or by the engraver, yet further differences in the type and number of accents between A and FE suggest that Chopin was adding these marks independently to A and to [FC] or while proofreading FE. However, even under such circumstances, the missing accent seems to be an oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 316-318

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Short accents in A (→GE)

Different  in FE (→EE)

Long accents after FE
..

When interpreted literally, the FE (→EE) marks could be interpreted as  hairpins (particularly the second mark in bar 317, longer than the remaining ones), and this is how we reproduce them in our transcriptions. The clear difference in the marks' length and position with respect to the A accents probably resulted from the fact that Chopin added them twice and independently – to A and to [FC] or while proofreading FE1. This would support the interpretation of the FE marks as long accents (as the context suggests), hence – accepting their authenticity – we suggest them in this form as an alternative version to the short A accents.
See also the note in bar 318.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents