Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
We reproduce the insertion in FEH in its literal form, interpreting the antepenultimate note as a harmonically justified a2, and not b2. It is unclear whether the added passage was meant to complete the arpeggiated chord or to replace it; we consider the first possibility to be more likely. According to us, one also cannot rule out that this entry is a kind of an abbreviation – it defines a model that is to be developed into a longer figuration. We suggest a possible addition based on this assumption as an alternative interpretation of the entry. At the same time, in the descending part of the passage, we use the idea included in a variant in FES, left without placement, which is clearly similar in terms of rhythm, interval structure and hand position. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Accidentals in different octaves , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 63
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The authenticity of the variant written in FEH seems to be highly likely (like in the case of the remaining variants in this movement of the Concerto – see e.g. bar 29 or 57). It is noteworthy that this version, although it does not strictly correspond to the orchestral part, results in a smoother combination of bars 63-64 when performed on one piano. According to us, such a subtle and dexterous consideration of the specific nature of the one-piano version's sound clearly points to Chopin being the author of this variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 64-72
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
It is puzzling that the changes of the bass note at the end of bar 64 and in the 1st half of bar 65, written in Morch and other sources of the orchestral part, were not considered in the harmonic accompaniment added in FES (see bars 45-52). According to us, it can be a result of inadvertence, hence we suggest a corresponding hypothesis in this place.
After choosing the version with accompaniment, it may be necessary to select corresponding versions also in bar 65 (d-d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 67
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
The visible in FED pencilled entry of Chopin (8 3a and a line over the descending scale, creating a kind of an octave sign) constitutes, according to us, a variant in which the indicated scale figuration fragment is to be extended by an octave – ottava terza, as this entry is to be deciphered, probably signalises that the sequence of quavers, in the printed version filling generally the two-line octave, is supposed to include the three-line octave too). Chopin would often write this kind of scale or passage figuration extensions in pupils' copies, e.g., in the Concerto in E Op. 11, mvt II, bar 58-59, Nocturne in F category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major
..
In FED Chopin wrote the variant way of performing the arpeggio on the chord in the L.H. – with the added lower octave. We present a proposal of interpretation after the notation used by Chopin in the Etude in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Bass register changes , Abbreviated octaves' notation |
lowering c
3 to c3 – such inaccuracies are typical of Chopin's notation and belong to the most frequent flaws in the notation of his works.
) and 
