Issues : Long accents
|
b. 113
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the unequivocal long accent, written in AF. The short accents in the editions must be a result of misunderstanding the manuscripts. In FE (→EE) the mark was placed under the wrong chord by mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 115
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The two accents written in AF in analogous b. 19 and 111 have the characteristics that are frequently encountered in the notation of short accents – the mark tilted upwards and a relatively big angle between the arms. However, the mark in the discussed bar is less characteristic in this respect; therefore, we assume that it is a long accent. In FE (→EE) it was placed under the L.H. chord by mistake, which Chopin then corrected in the last stage of proofreading by adding a second accent under the R.H. triplet. According to us, the added accent – certainly long – tips the balance in favour of long accents in all analogous bars. The short accent in GE may be considered an alternative version. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 134-140
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF the accents in b. 139-140 are clearly shorter than the three previous ones in b. 134, 136 and 138, hence we reproduce them as short. However, if we were to compare them to the distribution of the notes, it would turn out that they are actually the same length – each reaches more or less the middle of the triplet. Therefore, it is most likely that Chopin meant all of them to be long accents, the way it is clearly shown in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||||
|
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. 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 |
in 
