mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Andante spianato

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 85-89

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Short accents in FE & GE2 (→GE3), literal reading

Short accents in EE, literal reading

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3), contextual interpretation

Long accents in GE1, literal reading

Long accents in GE1, contextual interpretation
..

In accordance with the analysis carried out in b. 73-75, in the main text we move the accents in b. 85, 86 and 89:

  • we move the first mark in b. 85 over the L.H. fifth, in accordance with b. 73. The difference between these bars could have resulted from a different layout – the mark in b. 85 was placed next to the notehead, which was a routine action of engravers and could have been performed contrary to the notation of [A];
  • we assign the accent in b. 86 to the R.H., after b. 74;
  • we move the accent in b. 89 over the minim, which is mainly of ordering nature.

We reproduce the long (GE1) or short (the remaining sources) accents in accordance with the analysis of b. 67-72.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 90

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Short R.H. accent in FE & GE2 (→GE3)

Long R.H. accent in GE1

Short accents in EE

Short accents suggested by the editors

Long accents, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we suggest adding an accent in the L.H. after analogous b. 78. The mark was already added in EE. The accent may be considered short or long: see b. 67-72.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 96

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent in GE1
..

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 99-105

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Long accents in FE (→GE1)

Vertical accents in EE

Short accents in GE2 (→GE3)
..

Contrary to b. 55-62, FE include long accents here, i.e. in b. 99-100 and 103-105. We consider it an inaccuracy and we give short accents in the main text. The remaining editions repeated here the accents used for the first time: long in GE1, vertical in EE and short in GE2 (→GE3).

See also b. 106, which we discuss separately due to the mistakes in GE and EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 106

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Long accent on d2 in FE

Long accent on e2 in GE1

No mark in EE1

Vertical accent on e2 in EE2

Short accent on e2 in GE2

Short accent on d2 in GE3
..

Both the missing accent in EE1 and its placement on the 3rd semiquaver of the bar in GE1 (→GE2) must be mistakes. The oversight of the accent in EE1 could have been repeated after FE, in which the mark was then added in the last phase of proofreading. The addition of the accent in EE2 in an erroneous place may mean that the reviser did not compare this bar with b. 62, but with GE1 (there is also a possibility that it is simply a mistake, e.g. of the engraver).
In the editions that feature an accent here, it was the same type of mark as previously that was used: see b. 99-105.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions