Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 160
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The mark in AF, in spite of its excessive size, could be considered a long accent if it were not for an even longer mark in analogous b. 168. Due to this reason, in the main text we keep the form of this mark written in AF, which, according to Chopin, could have been supposed to emphasise not only the minim, but also its modulating continuation. The absence of the mark in EE probably means that it was overlooked in the proof copy of FE. Then the long accent printed in the finished FE would be a result of Chopin's proofreading. A similar situation can be found in b. 168. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
|||||||||||
|
b. 166
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The range of the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 168
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in analogous b. 160, in the main text we reproduce the mark of AF. The long accent in FE may result from Chopin's proofreading, which is indicated by the fact that EE does not contain any mark. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 173
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF the accent in this bar is shorter than in the next ones. A comparison with AI shows that it is almost certainly an inaccuracy, which, however, could have influenced the interpretation of this and next marks in FE (→EE). GE also features a short accent, which does not have to mean that the notation of [AG] was also ambiguous. The issue of placement of this mark, between the staves, is slightly more difficult, and we discuss it in more detail in the next bars. In this bar we place the mark in the main text in the middle, in accordance with AI. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||
|
b. 174-176
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In both preserved autographs the accents are clearly closer to the bottom stave. According to us, it does not mean that it is only the two bottom notes of the chords performed by the L.H. that should be accented, which could have attenuated this dramatic culmination in AI and AF feature long accents, which was not taken into account in any of the editions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
in 
in 
dynamics. (Chopin might have wanted to emphasise g
1, to which the bass voice in the preceding progression was led.) Due to the same reason, it is difficult to assume that the accents under the R.H. part visible in