|
|
|
|
Changes of dynamic indications in bars 190-197, appearing in FE with respect to GE1, are difficult to be ascribed to the engraver's distraction only:
-
in bar 190, 
in bar 192 and 
in bar 195 were overlooked; - in bars 194-196 dashes marking the range of cresc. from bar 193 were added;
-
was changed to in bar 197.
Marking the range of crescendo with dashes must be considered a Chopin proofreading, hence it proves that the composer accepted all dynamic indications in FE at least in bars 193-197, even if some of the omissions of signs were a result of the engravers' distraction. According to us, it is also possible that the composer checked the dynamics in previous bars 190-192 and no dynamic changes after 
in bar 189 did not raise his concerns. It is even more likely, since the dynamic sequence indicated in FE is coherent and – not excluding nuances resulting from the mutual relationship between motifs and phrases – it fits well into the logical dynamic scheme of the entire Tutti (forte in bars 181-188, piano in bars 188-193, crescendo in bars 193-196, fortissimo in bars 197-198 and piano in bars 199-205). Due to this reason, in the entire fragment we give the version of FE in the main text.
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Verbal indications
Back to note