The almost complete absence of accents in b. 111-125 in GE is probably an inadvertence of the engraver or Chopin. It is indicated by:
- the accents in analogous b. 87-101, compliant – in spite of different placement – between GE and FE;
- the presence of accents in b. 119-121 in GE, without there being any justification convincing enough for them being present only in these bars;
- consistent accents – the authenticity of which is unquestionable – in this entire section in FE, which practically rules out the possibility that Chopin could have been considering an alternative concept of this fragment.
If Chopin were responsible for the lack of accents in GE, he could have then entered them into the basis for FE or while proofreading that edition. Therefore, in the main text we give accents in all the discussed bars; we keep the placement of FE (→EE), like the first time – see also the note on b. 119-121.
The accents of FE are generally longer here than in b. 87-101; however, it is inconsistent – the accent in b. 119 is short, while some others could be also considered short (in b. 116, 120 and 122-124). According to us, there are no musical reasons to differentiate between the accents or make them longer (with respect to the first appearance). Therefore, the engraver could have misinterpreted the majority of the marks, even if they were actually longer in the basis or in a proof copy. Taking into account the above, in the main text we suggest short accents (we discuss the mark in b. 125 separately). Such a solution was also adopted in EE.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Inaccuracies in FE, Errors in GE, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins