



b. 140-141
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The beginning of the slur in FE is written slightly inaccurately, which explains an earlier beginning of the slur in all the remaining editions (one quaver too early). The interpretation of the slur of A – see bars 12-13. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||
b. 140-141
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The interpretation of the range of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
b. 140
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Generalising staccato dots to all semiquavers is almost certainly an arbitrary decision of GE (→FE→EE). It is proved by the original slurring of A in which the slur embraced only three groups of semiquavers: the ones with dots. According to us, it points to interconnected indications, which is quite frequent in Chopin's works; in this way, Chopin would indicate a milder or more delicate articulation than the common staccato. At the same time, the original slur confirms that according to Chopin's intention, the described performance manner concerned only 11 notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 140
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Extending the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||
b. 140
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
The interpretation of the fingering written in FEO is not certain. The digits written therein imply a division of the passage between the hands, different from the one following from the printed layout of beams; however, it was not marked in any way – all digits are above the notes. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that, on the 2nd crotchet in the bar, digits for the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers were swapped by mistake. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |