Issues : Long accents
|
b. 8
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
It is difficult to interpret the mark in CJ – it has uneven arms, as a result of which it is uncertain when it should begin, while its ending falls within the 2nd half of the bar, written using abridged notation, which hampers the estimation of its range. Moreover, the absence of the mark in the remaining sources, and particularly in CK, which is based on the same source, suggests that it could have been entered by mistake – the first halves of b. 8-9 are graphically very similar, which could have confused the copyist. According to us, assuming that the mark was present in [A2], we consider a long accent to be the most likely interpretation. Due to the described doubts, in the main text we give this accent in a variant form. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The indications concerning the a1 note at the beginning of the bar raise serious doubts due to the sources based on [A2] being incompatible – CJ and CK. In the main text we give an interpretation of the notation of CJ, in which both visible elements – slur and short category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in CK |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 17-20
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
It is only the first out of the four accents written in these bars in [A2] (→CJ,CK) that can be considered an unequivocal long accent on the basis of CJ. In this copy, the shape of the three remaining ones is the one of short accents, yet a confrontation with the specifically moved marks in CK leads us to the conclusion that they were most probably long accents in [A2]. In CK the marks in b. 17-18 are moved to such an extent that it is difficult to guess the intention of the writer without CJ (it may be the reason why both were omitted in CB, while the former also in EL). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 22
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The clear accent in CK allows us to consider the longer mark in CJ a long accent, which we give in the main text. In CB and EL the mark was reproduced as a short diminuendo hairpin. Cf. b. 26. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Revisions in EL |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 25-26
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
in 
in 
1 crotchet only. In turn, the second mark in b. 26 in the copies is short enough to be a long accent too, which should then be referred to the beginning of the triplet. The absence of the mark in