Issues :
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
b. 124
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
The indication was added in PE2 (→PE3→PE4) probably as a correction of the oversight by the engraver of PE1 (→GE). According to us, however, it is more likely that the indication entered into [A] was , and not :
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in PE , |
||||||||
b. 124
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
The wedges for the 1st crotchet were most probably overlooked by PE1 (→GE), which was rectified by adding them in PE2 (→PE3→PE4). Cf. the note on / below. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Wedges , Errors in PE , |
||||||||
b. 125
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In PE1 (→PE2) there is no lowering f2 to f2. The patent mistake was corrected in GE. A natural to this note was also added in PE3 (→PE4); however, it was placed on the wrong side of the note – right. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Sign reversal , Errors in PE , |
||||||||
b. 143
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
The notation of PE1 (→PE2), which is devoid of the 1st beat of the bar on the top stave, although formally inaccurate, could be authentic, since Chopin would often omit rests specifying the voice scheme or filling the bar in quasi-polyphonic notation (e.g. in the R.H. in bars 117-119). Therefore, in the main text we leave it unchanged, since it seems unlikely that it could mislead the performers. In GE the bar on the top stave was completed by replacing 2 crotchet rests with a semibreve rest. An interesting yet rather unfortunate attempt at correcting the initial version of notation was made in PE3 by adding an additional stem to the bottom note of the octave, E1. This addition was removed in PE4, thus restoring the version of PE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in PE , |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »