Issues : Long accents

b. 19

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No mark in JC

 in EF

Vertical accent in PE

..

In the main text we give the vertical accent present in the base source, PE. In this context, the sign in EF should rather be interpreted as a long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Vertical accents

b. 24

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No markings in JC

 and > in #FE

 in PE

..

The combination of  and an accent is featured both in EF and in PE, yet in EF the accent is short, while in PE – long. In JC there are no indications. (In GEF there is no accent in Da Capo, written out in notes). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 26-30

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No accents in JC

Accents in EF

Accents in PE

Our suggestion

..

In the base text, PE, the notation of the accents at the end of bars 26, 28, and 30 is not consistent: bar 26 has a long accent (as in bar 24), but in bar 30 a short accent appears, while in bar 28 there is no sign at all. EF includes only short accents (except for bar 26 in FEF), whereas JC is totally devoid of them. In the main text we propose unified and completed accents of PE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 26-30

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No signs in JC & EF

Accents in PE

..

The long accents visible in PE – one in bar 26 and two in bar 30 – create a developed and enriched image of this section, together with slurs and other changes. The decision concerning performing the accents in bar 28 must be left to the taste of the pianist.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 32-33

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No marks in JC

Short accents in EF

Long accents in PE

..

In the main text we give long accents on the basis of PE. In JC there are no signs, in EF the accents are short.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents