mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 1-5

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

Long accents in A1 & GE1

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

In the main text we give 5 long accents placed between the staves, which corresponds to the unequivocal notation of A1. The notation of GE1 is generally compliant with the above, although it is difficult to say conclusively whether they are short or long accents on the basis of GE1 only; anyway, they are slightly longer than the majority of the accents in the middle section of the Mazurka. The version of the remaining editions, with short accents over the top stave, must be a result of routine revision: the engravers of FE and GE2 reproduced the marks in the same manner, yet independently. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , GE revisions

b. 1

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No mark in AI

Long accent in AF (→FE) & GE

Short accent in EE
..

There is no accent in AI, since Chopin at some point decided not to finish this manuscript, e.g. in b. 1-15, there are no accents (out of a few ones) or staccato dots (see the description of AI). The short accent in EE is an inaccuracy resulting from the ignorance of the difference in meaning between the Chopinesque short and long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

Long accents in A (→FC), contextual interpretation

4 short accents in FE

No marks in GE 

3 vertical accents in EE
..

The long accents written in A (→FC) were not reproduced correctly in any of the editions. Both the shorter marks in FE and their omission in GE could have been related to a very dense and not always rational vertical text layout. The change of the accents' font in EE is a revision, typical of that edition, while the omission of the third mark – an oversight.
In the main text we also include – unlike FE – the accents in b. 2, marked in the manuscripts as a repetition of b. 1. This issue is generally ambiguous, e.g. tempo/character indications are certainly not to be repeated, but slurs and pedalling marks continued in the next bars should definitely be repeated. In the case of accents, both possibilities are actually equivalent in this context – the marks are given here as a pattern and should be applied also in the next bars, hence the number of explicitly given accents (4 or 8) is insignificant (cf., e.g. the accents at the beginning of the Prelude No. 6 in B Minor or the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 1-14

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

Long accents in A, contextual interpretation

& accents in FC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  marks in b. 1-2 and analog. are of different length in A; however, the differences are clearly of an accidental nature, hence we unify them in the main text. At the same time, we give them the form of long accents, taking into account, above all, the graphical factor – it is shorter marks that definitely prevail, which can be considered long accents – and the practical factor – in the Allegro molto tempo, each such a fast succession of short diminuendoes, unless we combine them in one, two-bar long (which would have been certainly written differently), comes down to accents.

The markings in the remaining sources also indicate that attempts were made to unify them, although in the case of FC (→GE), the first two passages are provided with clearly longer marks than the subsequent ones. Those versions can be considered an acceptable interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

 in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Long accent in A, contextual interpretation

in FC (→GE)
..

Actually, the  mark written in A encompasses the entire opening sextuplet. However, some of the subsequent marks, which, according to us, are to be interpreted as long accents regardless of their factual length, are of a similar length, which makes us consider this mark to be a long accent too. Naturally, the literal interpretation may be regarded as an equal variant. The mark in FC (→GE), quite significantly shortened, could have resulted from the copyist's conviction about the need to unify this and the subsequent marks.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FC