Issues : Alterations in CF
b. 13
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The version of GE resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the illegible correction concerning the pitch of this note in FC – the copyist most probably first wrote g1 and then turned it into f1, as a result of which both the 2nd line and the 1st space are covered. A correction (crossing-out) is also visible in A, in which, however, it almost certainly concerned rhythm – Chopin pondered whether to write the discussed note as a minim. The pencilled correction of the wrong clef (bass) visible in FC at the beginning of the bar – it opens the line in this manuscript – as well as a possible crossing-out of one of the notes (rather the bottom one, hence f1) on the 2nd L.H. quaver were performed by a later owner of FC, i.e. Hermann Scholtz. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Deletions in A , Inaccuracies in FC , Alterations in CF |
||||||
b. 77
|
composition: Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major
..
The cautionary flat to E is present in FE and EE. In FC one can see a deletion in this place, most probably of a ; however, in GE it was reintroduced. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Alterations in CF |
||||||
b. 89-94
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we give a hairpin added by Chopin in FC (→GE). In this phrase the manuscript bears traces of corrections performed by Chopin, who, initially, wrote three subsequent marks in b. 87-90, 91-92 & 93-94, which he then deleted. The second half of the first of those marks (written on the top stave in b. 89-90) was not deleted, yet there is no doubt that the six-bar long written below expresses the composer's later intention. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FC , Alterations in CF |
||||||
b. 105-114
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In b. 105-106, 109 & 113-114 in the main text we give the pedalling added by Chopin in FE (→EE). In FC (→GE1) the entire final section of this theme (b. 105-116) is devoid of markings, which must be Chopin's oversight; it could have been provoked by the corrections in the L.H. part in b. 102-104: Chopin could have noticed a mistake there while adding pedalling; having corrected it, which required the erasure of 3 bars of accompaniment, he did not resume his previous activity. GE2 (→GE3) added markings on the basis of the pedalling written in FC in analog. b. 237-238, 241 & 245-246, which is totally compliant with the markings we suggest. See also the notes to b. 107-108, 110-112 & 115-116. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Alterations in CF |
||||||
b. 225-226
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In FC (→GE1) Chopin wrote here two one-bar pedals. According to us, it is an oversight of the composer, who wrote one two-bar pedal in analogous b. 93-94, in accordance with the harmonic sense. Due to the above reason, we suggest that version in the main text. Chopin committed such a mistake also in b. 213-214, where the superfluous pedal change was yet noticed and crossed out. A two-bar pedal was introduced in GE2; however, GE3 restored the notation of FC. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC , Alterations in CF |