|
b. 162-163
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to say which of the sources based directly on [A] – FE and GC – reproduced Chopin's notation more accurately. Therefore, we give the version of the principal source, i.e. FE (→EE) – see Rules of creation of the main text. The missing mark in GE1 must be an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
The version of FE (→GE,EE) is most probably erroneous – in the entire section encompassing bars 156-157, the 3rd quaver in analogous figures in the L.H. is always an a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 162-164
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The missing staccato dots in bar 162 in GE1 (→FE→EE) are certainly an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (cf. bars 156-160). Similarly, the absence of dots in bar 164 in A is also to be regarded as an oversight – in this bar, the last on the page, Chopin overlooked all articulation markings in the L.H. (dots and slurs). Dots were added in GE1 (→FE→EE); however, they were added also in the previous bar (163), which, as it seems, was not compliant with Chopin's intentions (cf. bar 161 and the note on slurs in bar 159). However, this does not exclude Chopin's participation in the proofreading, since the composer could have changed the concept of markings. According to us, it is a mistake at the time of performing the proofreading or an editorial revision that are more likely. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 162-166
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
No staccato dots over the first quavers in bars 162 and 166 is certainly an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). The mistake was partially corrected in GE2, by adding a dot in bar 162 (also in the L.H.). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
suggested by the editors
