Issues : Rhythmic errors
|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of GC |
||||
|
b. 68-72
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In Atut (→FE), the minims in bars 68 and 72 are devoid of extending dots, which, in both cases, must be considered a mistake. Dots were added in GE and EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A |
||||
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Chopin erroneously wrote the syncopated c2 note on the 2nd quaver in the bar as a double dotted crotchet. The mistake was only noticed by FESB, which tried to amend it by replacing the dots with a semiquaver, connected to the crotchet by a tie (in this place there is actually no tie, but this must have been the reviser's intention, which is proven by the ties in analogous situations in b. 77 and 89). Rhythmically speaking, the notation is correct; however, it is unclear due to the arrangement of the notes – the added semiquaver was placed not over the last quaver in the bottom voice, but right next to the crotchet. In the main text we suggest the same rhythmic values yet correctly arranged and beamed. Chopin used a similar notation in the Prelude in C category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||
|
b. 70
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE, the semiquaver beam of the bottom voice was led until c category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
||||
|
b. 75
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The version of FE, when interpreted literally – d1-f1 as semibreves, including the upper one with a dot – is certainly erroneous. We assume, as it was interpreted in EE, that the notation determines the value of semibreve for the lower voice. This version could be considered to be a result of Chopin's proofreading, yet the engraver's error, who simply did not complete the work (a minim flag and a dot next to the lower note are missing), seems to be a more likely possibility. This is how this place was corrected in GE; we give this undoubtedly authentic version in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
(error) in 
in 
in 
minor, Op. 45, 
2. The mistake was corrected in 
