![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : FE revisions
b.
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
None of the first editions reproduced the arpeggio before the chord with grace note correctly. The version of FE (→EE) is most probably a distorted notation of A1: the vertical curved line marking the arpeggio was reproduced as a conventional one, which converted it into a tie of the grace note. In GE the wavy line of the arpeggio encompasses the L.H. e category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major
..
In the main text we give the title in the wording adopted in the headings of FE and GE. There are no doubts that such additions to the title as "grande" in FE and EE or "nouvelle" on the title page of FE were introduced for marketing purposes and on the initiative of the editors (sometimes perhaps also upon Chopin's consent). The Waltz published in Pacini's publishing house (FE) appeared as a part of a bigger album, "Cent-Et-Un" and was given a subsequent number – 68. As a result of this, the numbering of pages is continued: it starts with page 408 and ends with page 415. The title of Pacini's album was also used by the English editor, Wessel, undoubtedly for the purpose of advertising and trading, adding to the Waltz in EE the indication "Cent-et-Un." category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Various titles , FE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 1-22
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In GE the entire first Tutti is written in a font of a normal size, clearly against the notation of A and generally applied rules of publication of solo versions of works with orchestra. Therefore, we consider it a patent mistake, which we reproduce only in the version "transcription." One can wonder why nobody paid attention to it when preparing GE2, generally carefully revised on the basis of A. FE (→EE) did not repeat this error, which seems to be an editorial decision, perhaps consulted with Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , FE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The L.H. slurs added in bars 1-2, 2-3 in FE are almost certainly inauthentic. They were probably added due to the change of the layout: in the notation of A (→FC→GE), the R.H. part is situated on the bottom stave together with the L.H., as a result of which the slur over the notes naturally concerns both parts. In FE (→EE) the R.H. part was moved to the upper stave; hence the articulation and phrasing of the L.H. was no longer obvious. It could have been noticed by Chopin himself; however, it is difficult to assume that he could have added a slur suggesting a different phrasing of the L.H. An identical addition in GE1, which was not proofread by Chopin, perfectly illustrates the attitude of the engravers or revisers (in GE1 and EE in bars 1-2 it was also the R.H. slur that was adjusted to the L.H. slur, contrary to the Stichvorlagen). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , FE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor
..
The two-part notation of the L.H. part, in which the recurring B-A category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: FE revisions |