Issues : Long accents

b. 8

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Long accent in AI

Short accent in A (→FEGE,EE)

..

From the graphic point of view, it is hard to consider the accent in A as long, however, it cannot be excluded that in this place the composer's intention is rendered better by the sign of AI.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 20

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

No mark in AI

Long accent in A & EE

Short accent in FE (→GE)

..

The unambiguous long accent in A was interpreted in FE (→GE) as short. However, the mark in EE may be regarded as long.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 33

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

No mark in AI

Long accent in A (→FE)

Short accent in GE & EE

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 34

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Long accent in AI

Short accent in A (→FEGE,EE)

..

The accent in A may be regarded as short, and that is how it was reproduced in the editions. However, the mark is shifted to the right of the note which suggest the intended use of a long accent. A clear long accent is written in AI.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 58

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

No marks in AI & A

Dots & accent in FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion

..

All performance indications in the R.H. – dots, accents and slurs – were added by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). According to us, the engraver, by adding a short accent to the gcrotchet, could have misinterpreted Chopin's entry in a proof copy. Therefore, in the main text we propose a long accent – cf. the note to bars 61-62.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE