Issues : Long accents
|
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
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 category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||||
|
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
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
..
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
..
In AF the long accent under the culminant g 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
..
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 category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
Major, Op. 24 No. 3, b. 
in 
2 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.
