Issues : Long accents
|
b. 434
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The mark in A, like in analogous b. 332, is most probably a reversed long accent, and this is the version we give in the main text. All the remaining sources reproduced it inaccurately, moving it to the right and sometimes also extending it. We suggest a common long accent as an alternative version, as written by Chopin in FC in analogous b. 332. It is likely that the change was also to apply to the discussed bar: overlooking proofreading one of the analogous places is one of Chopin's typical inaccuracies. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||
|
b. 462
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The shape of the accent in A suggests that it is a long accent. It is even more evident in similar b. 470. In FC (→GE) both marks were reproduced as common short accents. Taking into account the fact how carefully Chopin reviewed FC, the absence of corrections in those and similar places may mean that Chopin did not always consider the type of accent used to be a priority. We consider the version with a short accent featured in the principal source to be an acceptable variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||
|
b. 470
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The mark in A bears all the hallmarks of a long accent. In spite of that, both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) it was reproduced as a common short accent, which, according to us, may be considered an acceptable variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||
|
b. 486
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in analogous b. 478, A features here a long accent, although its length seems to be less distinct than there. Nevertheless, it was reproduced as a long one not only in FC, but also in FE, which previously contained a short accent. To the main text we adopt a long accent, in accordance with b. 478 and with a slightly longer articulation of these octaves marked by Chopin with rhythmic values: these are minims, and not staccato crotchets, such as in, e.g. the next two bars. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||
|
b. 492-493
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A there is a clear difference between the long accents in the R.H. and the short accent on A in b. 493. It is noticeable in FC, yet it may easily be considered insignificant, related to natural imperfection of handwriting, which explains the unification of the marks in GE. It is even more difficult to assess the marks in FE; in the entire section, which begins here, the differences between the accents, although visible, do not seem to signalise a different meaning. In the discussed bars we assume that these are long accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
in 
