Issues : Errors resulting from corrections
|
b. 26
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The initial version of A1 was corrected still in this autograph (inaccurately – the penultimate L.H. quaver, b, remained unchanged), whereas the sources based on [A2] already contain the changed version (regardless of the rhythmic changes). The version of EL may be Kolberg's revision after the analogy with b. 22. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Corrections of AI , Kolberg's revisions , Revisions in EL |
|||||||||||
|
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
This is the first out of two places in which the graphical retouches in the latest impression of GE1, marked in our system as GE1a, contributed to a rhythmic mistake: the quaver flag next to g2 was overlooked. GE2 (→GE3) contains the correct text. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
Determining Chopin's intention related to the rhythm on the 3rd beat of the bar seems impossible here. A erroneously has a quaver and two demisemiquavers ( category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It is difficult to say whether the change of indication introduced by GE (→FE,EE) was a result of the engraver's inattention, revision or even Chopin's proofreading. The change seems too insignificant to bother about, which eliminates the last two possibilities. According to us, we can take one other scenario into account, maybe the most likely – the visible traces of corrections in the L.H. part reveal that the parts of both hands were initially misaligned (while planning the L.H., the engraver did not take into consideration the final R.H. quaver). Had leggieriss. been in the area of the correction, the engraver could have then inaccurately reproduced it from memory. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 29-31
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
The slur in A, despite its reaching quite far to the left towards the 1st crotchet, definitely begins from embracing the chord on the 2nd crotchet. Still, in GE (→FE→EE) the slur begins on the 1st crotchet. The result of corrections halfway through bar 30 is not obvious at the first glance and GE1 (→FE→EE) do not end the slur at that point. A more detailed analysis of the notation reveals that Chopin divided the original slur, which was probably already noticed in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions |
) in the upper voice. The text of 
. That latter rhythms was corrected both in 
