Issues : Placement of markings
|
b. 141-144
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In A, Chopin marked staccato only over the part of the R.H., which is undoubtedly valid for both hands in the context of this texture. In GE1 (→FE→EE), dots were printed only in bar 142, moved to the side of note heads (very frequent, routine intervention of engravers), and they were also added under the L.H. Oversight of the dots in bar 141 and 143-144 certainly stems from the engraver's carelessness, whereas addition of signs for the L.H. could have been ordered by Chopin. GE2 added the overlooked dots – in both hands – in bars 143-144. In the main text we present a similar solution, including signs on the last crotchet in bar 141. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 155-156
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The curved line of FE (→GE) placed on the side of the noteheads could be considered a tie of c1. This is how it was most probably understood in EE, where a slur was added over the chords. A comparison with the analogous situations in b. 152-153 and 153-154, in which the bottom-most, common note of the chords is not tied, shows that c1 is most probably to be repeated here. In order to avoid doubts, in the main text we place the slur over the chords. After all, it cannot be ruled out that the notation of [A] was unequivocal – the slur could have been placed over the chords (engravers would often move marks – slurs, accents, dots – to the side of the noteheads, not taking into account a possible change of significance of a given mark) or the second chord could have been provided with a staccato dot, like at the beginning of b. 155. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||
|
b. 173
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF the accent in this bar is shorter than in the next ones. A comparison with AI shows that it is almost certainly an inaccuracy, which, however, could have influenced the interpretation of this and next marks in FE (→EE). GE also features a short accent, which does not have to mean that the notation of [AG] was also ambiguous. The issue of placement of this mark, between the staves, is slightly more difficult, and we discuss it in more detail in the next bars. In this bar we place the mark in the main text in the middle, in accordance with AI. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||
|
b. 174-176
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In both preserved autographs the accents are clearly closer to the bottom stave. According to us, it does not mean that it is only the two bottom notes of the chords performed by the L.H. that should be accented, which could have attenuated this dramatic culmination in AI and AF feature long accents, which was not taken into account in any of the editions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||
|
b. 176
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
In FE and GE the slur was moved under the dyads, which effectively changed its meaning – instead of embracing the c2-b1 motif, it indicates to hold f1. Moreover, both in GE and in EE, a similarly placed slur was arbitrarily added in the 2nd half of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , GE revisions |
dynamics. (Chopin might have wanted to emphasise g
1, to which the bass voice in the preceding progression was led.) Due to the same reason, it is difficult to assume that the accents under the R.H. part visible in 
