Issues : Long accents
|
b. 111-112
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
According to us, the long accents of FE could have resulted from an incorrect interpretation of the handwritten marks by the engraver. Therefore, in the main text we accept the interpretation of EE. The missing accents in GE are most probably Chopin's or the engraver's inadvertence. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 113-124
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The absence of accents in b. 113-118 and 122-124 in GE is most probably an inadvertence of the engraver or of Chopin himself. If it were the latter, the accents of FE could have been added by Chopin, e.g. at the stage of proofreading of FE1. The majority of the marks of FE are long accents, although their size is not homogeneous – the marks in b. 116 and 122-124 could have been considered short in a different context. A comparison with b. 87-101 (including short accents) leads to the conclusion that moving certain fragments of the R.H. part an octave higher does not influence the character of the music in the discussed bars enough to use accents of a different length. Therefore, we assume that the longer accents resulted from an inaccurate reproduction of the manuscript basis or Chopinesque proofreading; in the main text we suggest short accents (like the first time). Short accents were also introduced by EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 119-121
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we suggest accents as written down in EE. This solution combines the most certain elements of the versions of GE1 and FE:
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 125
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
According to us, the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 315
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
It is difficult to say how accurately the notation of the manuscripts was reproduced in the editions. Both versions are, of course, possible. In the main text we give the notation of FE (→EE) due to the Chopinesque additions to the dynamic markings in this and the previous bar, introduced at the stage of proofreading of FE. The absence of the mark in GE2 is most probably an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
in 
), most probably target, a common prolongation of the diminuendo by a fraction of a bar seems to be insignificant, hence it is highly unlikely that Chopin could have written it down in such a form. Due to the above reason, we suggest two possible interpretations of this mark, which are, according to us, more likely in this context.
