Issues : EE inaccuracies
|
b. 1-32
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
In A the A few particular situations – bars 4, 15, 20, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31 – are discussed separately. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
There is no accent in AI, since Chopin at some point decided not to finish this manuscript, e.g. in b. 1-15, there are no accents (out of a few ones) or staccato dots (see the description of AI). The short accent in EE is an inaccuracy resulting from the ignorance of the difference in meaning between the Chopinesque short and long accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing accent in GE must be the engraver's or Chopin's inadvertence, since in all similar situations, the syncopated crotchet beginning a motif is provided with an accent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 2-32
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 1, Prelude in C major
..
In b. 2-17, 22 and 28-32, in which the R.H. figure begins from the rest and is encompassed with one slur, the starting point of those slurs in A is unclear. The vast majority of the slurs begin over or even before the initial rest (b. 4, 10, 13-15), hence only the slurs in b. 5 and 17 seem to concern the notes only. The notation does not indicate an intention to differentiate between the range of those slurs (the differences are accidental inaccuracies); therefore, we consider that all of them encompass an entire bar. This is the version we give in the main text. On the other hand, Chopin would often write slurs with a flourish; consequently, we cannot rule out that it was also here that he wanted the slurs to encompass the 5-semiquaver figures only. This is how it was reproduced by Fontana in his copy, which was then repeated in GE. In turn, the notation of FE poses an analogous interpretative issue to the one in A – admittedly, the majority of the slurs begin over the rest (the ones in b. 28-32 even before), but the general picture is unclear, since the endings of those slurs also go far beyond the last semiquaver, which, of course, does not mean that they are supposed to reach further. In EE, based on FE, the slurs encompass the semiquavers only. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
It is not clear whether the accent written in A was meant to be a short one or a long one. GE (→FE) has a short accent here, and the inaccurate placement of that mark in FE brought about its erroneous interpretation in EE. However, a comparison with the analogous bars 11, 51 and 59 points to the long accent option as being more probable. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
asterisks are put either after the 3rd crotchet in the bar (or a corresponding it rest) or before, depending on the fact whether the entire bar is based on the same chord or not. In 
in