Issues : Long accents
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
It is not clear whether the accent written in A was meant to be a short one or a long one. GE (→FE) has a short accent here, and the inaccurate placement of that mark in FE brought about its erroneous interpretation in EE. However, a comparison with the analogous bars 11, 51 and 59 points to the long accent option as being more probable. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In A, the difference in notation of the two R.H. accents in this bar is very pronounced. Nevertheless, the second one - the long one - was in GE (→FE→EE) reproduced as a short one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||||
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||||
b. 16
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In analogous bars 8 and 56 A has long accents. Still, we retain the short accent here due to a different further course of music that could influence the sign chosen by Chopin. On the other hand, one cannot entirely rule out the possibility of inaccurate notation of that detail in A; we take that option into account as well. suggesting a long accent as an alternative. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||||
b. 17-18
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
The clear notation of A was distorted by the omission of the accent in bar 18 in GE1 (→FE→EE1) and changes of accent shapes in FE (→EE) and GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |