Issues : Long accents
b. 1-5
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
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
..
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
..
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. 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
..
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
..
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 |