Issues : Long accents
b. 372
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The difference in the length of the accents in FE seems to be accidental – in bar 375, accents in a similar motif are all the same. Due to this reason, in the main text we give accents of the same length (short), just like in GE and EE. category imprint: issues: Long accents |
|||||
b. 453
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The type of accents used by Chopin does not unambiguously result from the notation of FE – the marks are longer than the definitely short accents (e.g. in bars 474-476) and placed slightly after the notes, which may be an argument for long accents. In the main text, we give short accents, since they seem to be more natural in this context. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
b. 463-465
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
It is uncertain which kind of accents Chopin meant in bars 463 and 465, since two accents in bar 463 are long, whereas the one in bar 465 – short. As there is no reason to differentiate between the indications, we suggest unifying the marks and choose long accents for the main text. (We also suggest adding an accent at the beginning of bar 465.) category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||
b. 517
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give the mark the form of a long accent after analogous bar in exposition (bar 162). There is a similar situation in bar 521. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||
b. 521
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A syncopation in a cantilena phrase is a typical place for a long accent, which is confirmed by the analogous bar in the exposition (bar 166). Therefore, we consider the accent in the sources to have been inaccurately reproduced. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |