Issues : Long accents

b. 14

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

Long accent in GC

No mark in FE (→EE1)

Short L.H. accent in GE

Long L.H. accent in EE2

..

The accent in GC was probably added by Chopin. In GE, clearly against the manuscript, it was assigned to the L.H. and it was given a shape of a common, short accent. Such placed sign was repeated in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 16

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

 in GC & GE2mar (→GE2)

 in FE (→EE)

Accent in GE1

..

It is not clear which of the sources based directly on [A] – GC and FE1 – conveyed the range more accurately and, as a consequence, also the sense of the  hairpin. Both versions have their stylistic advantages and can be convincingly justified, as far as the source aspects are concerned: 

  • The sign in FE clearly emphasises the culminant appogiatura of the melodic line. Chopin could have added it in [A] already after having prepared GC.
  • The sign in GC extends the culmination's release into the entire bar, somehow considering the counterpointing part of the L.H. The sign could have also been added by Chopin, if in [A] there were initially no dynamic signs here.

In the main text we give the  sign according to the base source, i.e. FE. The version of GC can be considered to be an equal variant.

The accent in GE1 is undoubtedly a result of misunderstanding of the notation of GC, which was corrected in GE2mar (→GE2).

Similarly in bars 24, 70 and 78.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 45

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

Long accent in GC & GE2

 in FE (→EE)

No sign in GE1 (→GE2mar)

..

It is not clear whether according to Chopin the sign at the beginning of the bar was supposed to be a long accent, as it can be considered on the basis of GC and GE2, or rather a diminuendo, as it was written in FE (→EE). Taking into account the fact that in each of the cases the sign refers to the R.H., the difference in the performance may be imperceptible. To the main text we adopt an interpretation of the base source, i.e. FE.
The absence of the sign in GE1 (→GE2mar) is undoubtedly an oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 68

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

Long accent in GC & EE2

No mark in FE (→GE1)

Short accent in GE

..

The clearly long accent in GC (in bar 14, whose repetition bar 68 is) was reproduced in GE as a short one. The sign was added also in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE