|
b. 4-28
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In bars 4, 12 and 28 there are no slurs in the part of the L.H. in A. These are the same bars in which pedalling signs are missing. While writing the fourth, last bar of the accompaniment based on alternating use of two schemes, Chopin could have already been thinking about the next bar, structured differently. In GE1 (→FE) slurs were added in bars 12 and 28, in both cases repeating a slur used two bars earlier (in particular in bar 12 the erroneous slur from bar 10 was repeated). According to us, it indicates an action of the reviser. In EE and GE2 a slur was added also in bar 4, whereas in GE2 the slur in bar 12 was corrected. We give the last version in the main text, since the absence of slurs in the discussed bars must be an inaccuracy of notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4-7
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
These bars, making up the second line of A, contain a few distinct examples of Chopin's manner of writing notes on ledger lines. With the visibility of such a note probably in mind the composer shaped the note-head as a short vertical stroke which sometimes was extended enough to look like an additional downward crotchet stem. In the discussed bars it pertains to R.H. c1 in bars 4-6, as well as c1 and a in bar 7. Telling are in particular the notes in bars 5 and 7, where the descending direction of arpeggios makes any sustentions impossible. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Uncertain notes on ledger lines |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In Atut, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
A precise differentiation between long and short accents, typical of Chopin's notation, and assigning them to the right or left hand is impossible due to the missing autograph and visible inaccuracies of the first editions. In FE, it is possible to observe differences between accents in some cases; it also applies to GE to a lesser extent. In turn, the reviser of EE reproduced almost all accents as short. It is impossible to clearly identify in which places the notation of FE reproduces Chopin's notation faithfully (which can also be imprecise) and in which ones the length of the accent results from a random event or an inaccuracy. We try to reproduce the composer's intention taking into account his habits in this respect, documented by sources in other compositions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4-36
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A (→#CF) Chopin did not introduce any additional indications over the semibreve rests (bars 4, 12, 23-24, 28 and 36), which was reproduced only in GE2. In FE (→EE) it was the digit 1 that was placed over each single rest, whereas a pair of bars with rests was replaced with a double bar with a two-bar rest provided with the digit 2. In GE1 in each of the discussed bars both rests were provided with the digit 1. A similar notation was introduced in GE3, in which, however, the ones in bar 24 were replaced with twos. In the main text we keep the simple but unequivocal Chopinesque notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , FE revisions |
raising the bottom note of the L.H. on the 3rd beat of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in 
