Issues : Long accents

b. 19

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Short accent in AI & AF (literal reading→FEEE) & GE

Long accent, possible interpretation of AI & AF

..

The notation of the autographs does not clearly reveal which accent was meant by Chopin here. According to us, in spite of its graphic resemblance to a short accent, a long accent is more likely due to, above all, Chopinesque proofreading of analogous b. 115 as well as due to a very similar situation in the Mazurka in A Major, Op. 24 No. 3, b. 5, 9 and analog., where Chopin wrote long accents in three out of the four written-out places. However, we recommend a short accent as an alternative solution.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 21

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Long accent in AI & AF

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE

..

In the main text we give the unequivocal long accent written in AI and FE. Short accents in the editions must be a result of a misunderstanding of the manuscripts.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 23

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No mark in sources

Long accent suggested by the editors

Short accent, our alternative suggestion

..

The missing mark in the discussed bar is most probably Chopin's inadvertence. In the main text we suggest a long accent, in accordance with Chopinesque proofreading in analogous b. 115. The alternative suggestion results from the ambiguous notation of the autographs in similar b. 19 and 111.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 92

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No mark in AI & GE

 in AF, literal reading

Long accent in AF (contextual interpretation→FE)

Short accent in EE

..

In AF the long accent under the culminant g2 minim reaches as far as the beginning of the next bar; therefore, taking into account the preceding  and the following , one may also interpret it as a diminuendo mark. However, a comparison with the unequivocal long accents in b. 94, 98 suggests that the mark should rather be interpreted as an accent.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies

b. 94-95

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Long accent in AF (contextual interpretation) & GE

 in AF (literal reading→FEEE)

..

The mark in AF, although it reaches the beginning of b. 95, must have been meant as a long accent. It is indicated by the notation of GE and comparison with analogous b. 2. In FE (→EE) the mark was reproduced as a  hairpin.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents