Issues : Wedges
|
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The staccato sign in EE and GC (→GE) is doubtless authentic. In our main text we give the wedge recorded in GC, as publishers often replaced Chopin's wedges with dots, considering the former to be inaccurate or hasty renditions of the latter (this was a rule for GE, cf. e.g. a characteristic of the B&H edition in the Nocturne in D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Wedges |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Wedges |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor
..
It is unclear whether taking the decision to indicate articulation of the R.H. with the help of verbal indications, Chopin wanted to resign from the previously written staccato signs. Beginning from bar 11, Chopin deleted them in A, so that the fact of leaving them in bars 9-10 proves, according to us, an unfinished correction due to distraction. Hence our suggestion of the main text. However, Chopin could have left double indications (with words and signs) at the beginning of the new section on purpose. Taking into account visible inaccuracies resulting from graphical difficulties, it is the notation of GE2 (→GE3) that is the version which expresses this intention best. The version of FE and EE can also pretend to be authentic (accepted by Chopin). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 9-41
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
It is unclear whether the staccato markings with which Chopin provided the R.H. chords in b. 9, 17 and 33 (the missing marking in bar 41 must be an oversight, since it is the first bar on a new page of A) should be interpreted as wedges or dots. The ambiguity is confirmed by the sources based directly on A: the copyist interpreted those markings as dots, whereas the engraver of FE – as wedges. According to us, there are more arguments in favour of wedges, which we thereby suggest in the main text. The dot added in FE in bar 41 may come from Chopin, yet in this case it is also unclear whether the engraver interpreted Chopin's proof entry correctly. An identical addition introduced in GE cannot be authentic. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Wedges , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
Taking into account a possibility of an erroneous, simplified interpretation of GE of possible wedges of [A2], in the main text we give a wedge, written here in A1. We consider the staccato dot of Afrag to be a non-final stage of the search for a coherent concept of articulation markings of this and the analogous quavers; in turn, we consider the version of FE1 to be an example of the engraver having misunderstood the Chopinesque wedge. The wedge in FE2 could have been introduced on the basis of a new comparison with A1, although a significant number of oversights and other defects in that edition points to its hasty preparation rather than to careful edition using the manuscript. However, it may be a result of Chopin's sketchy proofreading, particularly if the mark was initially not there at all – see b. 17. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges |
major Op. 27 no. 2).
