Issues : Authentic corrections of EE
|
b. 145-147
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
Both notations of the slur in bars 145-146 – GC (→GE) and FE3 (→FE4) – mean generally the same, yet the notation used in FE accentuates the necessity of holding the full rhythmic value of the chord in bar 146, which is often not observed in the case of the last note under the slur. Chopin would often use this notation, cf., e.g., 1st mov., bar 176, the Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 4, bar 50, in C category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of EE , Tenuto slurs |
||||||||||||
|
b. 148
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The inaccurately vertically written notes result in GC not being entirely clear where the slur over the part of the R.H. is supposed to reach – the 2nd or the 3rd beat of the bar. In the main text we adopt the first possibility, in which the relation to the progression of the bottom voice is more significant. In the editions it was interpreted differently, which is also justified, particularly if we take into account the tenuto slur, added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE3 in bar 146. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||||||
|
b. 152-165
|
composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major
..
The slurring in bars 159-164 is clearly incomplete in FE0, which may be a result of Chopin's inaccuracies in [A], errors of the engraver or both. Chopin then changed and completed the slurs in FEG, the base text to EE and proofreading of FE1, yet in all of them differently. In total, it gives three different authentic slurring versions. In the main text we give the version written by Chopin's hand in FEG (→GE1), as in the case of FE and EE, there is a slight possibility that Chopin proofreading was overlaid with certain mistakes, manners or revisions of the engravers. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Authentic corrections of EE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 156
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
At the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar before the bottom note of the second, GC and FE1 (→FE2) have one category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of GC , Authentic corrections of EE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 157-160
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In both sources based on [A] – GC and FE – the pedalling is written certainly (GC) or probably (FE) inaccurately. What is more, in each of the sources the notation is different, which impedes finding out what Chopin's intention concerning this issue was (it is possible that the notation of [A] was inaccurate or unclear, e.g., as a result of corrections). In the main text we give the version of EE, which can be a result of the Chopinesque proofreading of the base text to this edition and which is analogous to the undoubtedly authentic pedalling of an identical phrase in bars 153-156. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections of EE |
minor, Op. 25 No. 7, bars 22, 24, 28 and 30 or the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4, bars 2, 4 and analog.
before each of the notes instead of 
1 appears in the part of the L.H. – was corrected in 
