Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The dedication, both in A and in FE (→EEW1→EEW2), determines the same person – baroness Charlotte de Rothschild, Nathaniel's wife. In the main text, we give an expression used in FE, being the official way of presenting a married woman in France. It is unclear why the dedication was left out in GE and EEC – in spite of a collective cover for three (in EEC two) Waltzes, it could have been placed, e.g., on the first page of the note text. In the case of GE, the reason could have been a possible absence of cover in the proof copy of FE, being the basis for GE, since the dedication was placed in FE only on the cover. As does not include either the title or the dedication. The dedication is also absent in AI, although it is known that the autograph was offered to baroness de Rothschild. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Dedications , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Upon seeing the slur of A led over the part of the L.H., impossible to reproduce in print in this form, the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) divided it into three parts to make it easier. According to us, the bottom slur is an addition by Chopin, who added a slur confirming the will expressed in A to embrace the part of the L.H. with one slur. In this context, it does not seem that Chopin would care about double slurs – the divided top slurs were most probably left in order to avoid an excessively complicated proofreading; it could have been a decision of the engraver or of Chopin. The added slur, although it is generally compliant with the slur of A, is, however, longer. Both versions make sense since the slur of A, led over the part of the L.H., reaches a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1-4
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
In EE the accents in the first four bars, just like in the practically entire piece, are short. It is an arbitrary change of the revisers. Long accents, most probably written by Chopin in [A], are present here only in FE. The first three accents of GE introduce a certain ambiguity, since their typeface is slightly different (they are narrower) than of the remaining marks in this source – perhaps they are also supposed to be interpreted as long. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
In FE there are no separate fermatas for the octaves in the L.H. The marks were added by the revisers of GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The later start of the slur could have been introduced by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE) – cf. other motifs of this theme with identical rhythm, e.g. in bars 3 and 25. However, in the main text we start the slur from the 1st note of the bar, in accordance with A, since the authenticity of the version of GE1 is uncertain. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1 |
, which is then repeated, while the slur of 
