Issues : Long accents

b. 15-23

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Short accents in FC (→GE), FE & EE

Long accents suggested by the editors

..

In the main text we give long accents over the d1 minims, although the notation of the sources does not suggest it. According to us, it is highly likely that the signs of the autograph were misinterpreted both by the copyist and the engravers:

  • misunderstanding of the idea of Chopin long accents was common among the engravers;
  • generally, Fontana also did not notice the difference between both types of accents in his copies (he most probably considered it an inaccuracy of notation), which can be proved in the pieces in which, apart from the copy, we dispose of the copied autograph – cf. e.g., the Etude in A minor, No. 4, bars 9-10 or Tarantella, Op. 43, bars 164-178;
  • in the autograph of the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., bars 433-438, in a similar context Chopin introduced long accents. 

Similarly in bars 24 and 114-121.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 24

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Short accent in FC (→GE), FE & EE

Long accent suggested by the editors

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 35-36

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Crotchets, accent in FC

Minims, accents in FE

Crotchets, accents in EE

Crotchets in GE1

Crotchets, accent in GE2 (→GE3)

Minims, long accents suggested by the editors

..

In the main text we give the notation modelled on FE as most probably the latest and most consistent – the accents, minims and pedalling specify the way of performance accordingly. The remaining sources prove that Chopin tried to mark the possibility of separating the tenor voice in different ways. In the version of EE it is the original form of the 1st chord (with a), mistake in pedalling and placing accents on the wrong side that draw the attention. The notation of FC is inconsistent (an accent over f1, separate stem for e1) and incomplete (no pedalling). In GE it was distorted even more – e1 is not separated, whereas GE1 overlooked the accent.
According to us, it is highly likely that in this context Chopin most probably had long accents on his mind.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 114-121

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Short accents in FC (→GE), FE & EE

Long accents suggested by the editors

..

In the main text, we suggest long accents, due to a possibility of an inaccurate interpretation of [A].

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 130-133

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Long accents in FC

R.H. long accent in FE

R.H. long accents in EE & GE1

Short accents in both hands in GE2 (→GE3)

..

The long accent in bar 130 must have been included in [A], whereas the remaining were added by Chopin in FC and probably in the base text to EE. The added signs have a form of long accents and this is how they were recreated in EE and GE1. In later GE, they were changed to common, short accents. The signs in FC are placed more or less between the staves and they probably concern both hands. In FE, EE and GE1 they were placed under the R.H., whereas in GE2 (→GE3), another set of accents for the L.H. was added.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC