Issues : Rhythmic errors
|
b. 149
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→GE1), the last 8 notes are written as 2 groups of semiquavers. The division into groups suggests that Chopin meant a strict and regular division, so the notes should be demisemiquavers. A respective change was introduced in EE and GE2 (→GE3). Additional beams were added also in FEJ, although it is impossible to confirm the authenticity of such a non-characteristic entry. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 151
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
All sources feature a quaver at the beginning of the bar, as a result of which the bar includes 13 semiquavers. It cannot be excluded that the mistake was already in [A]. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Errors in FE , Rhythmic errors , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The rhythm of the 1st beat of the bar, written in FE with a mistake, allows for two natural ways of correcting it – changing semiquavers to demisemiquavers, which was performed in GE, or shortening the first note, like it was corrected in FED. We consider the latter to be more likely, corresponding to the alignment of the notes with respect to the quavers in the L.H. and confirmed by the authority of FED. Apart from the correction of the rhythmic error, the entry in FED changes also the pitch of the 2nd and 3rd notes from b1-a1 to a1-g1. This can be regarded as an alternative version to the printed text (variant); however, according to us, it is also a correction of a mistake. We can only guess how the version of EE came into being; however, nothing proves that it could correspond to Chopin's final intention. In the main text, we give the version of FED, corrected during a lesson with Chopin both rhythmically and melodically. The version is compliant with the unquestionable version of analogous bar 517. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 202
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The bottom voice in the R.H. is written in A with a rhythmic error: category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 220
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Just like in b. 76, the dyad of the bottom voice (e category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
. We assume that Chopin wrote a dot extending the f1 quaver by mistake ("in a flow" after a few other dotted rhythms in bars 201-202); afterwards, he noticed his mistake and left two quavers, expecting that the poorly visible dot would not mislead the engraver. The quavers correspond to the rhythm in the 1st violin part in 
1-a1) in