Issues : Long accents
|
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The accent mark in A is short, yet it does not differ much from the other two accents in bars 127-128 that are most probably long ones. However, a comparison with analogous bars 120, 122 and 134 convincingly suggests a short accent here. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||
|
b. 131
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The accent mark in A is written inaccurately: the short mark is put after the note to which it refers. In GE (→FE→EE) the accent was understood as a short one, but in this context the use of a long accent by Chopin seems more probable. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||
|
b. 137
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The accent that can be seen in A (→GE→FE→EE) must be considered a short one. However, if we compare that bar with bars 121, 127 and 133, in which A clearly has long accents, we begin to suspect that the accent mark may have been written by Chopin in a hasty and inaccurate manner. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Long accents |
|||||
|
b. 139-142
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
Considering their shape and location, the accents in bars 139 and 142 in A must be viewed as short ones, and this is how they were interpreted in GE (→FE→EE). This is also consistent with Chopin's notation used in similar situations in bars 120, 122 and 134. However, the marks are big enough to stir some doubt; Chopin might have wanted to have long accents here after all, as accented notes are sustained longer (cf. also bar 146). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Long accents |
