|
b. 222
|
composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major
..
The accent written by Chopin in FEG does not differ in the size from the next ones, yet in GE1 it was interpreted as short. Perhaps the engraver paid attention to a slightly different shape of the sign; he could have also assumed that an accent would be more suitable over the crotchet, while over the pair of quavers – a short diminuendo (this is how the engravers would treat Chopin long accents). FE and EE also have short accents, however, it does not give certainty – as in the case of GE1 – as to Chopin's intention. Without access to a photography of FEG with higher revolution, not to mention finding the base texts to FE and EE, this issue seems to be impossible to resolve. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Authentic corrections of EE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 222-224
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The missing accent in bar 223 could be considered to be an inaccuracy of the engraver of FE, if it were not for Chopin proofreading of the analogous fragment of the exposition, in which he removed, among others, the counterpart of the accent (see bars 93-96). On the other hand, the authenticity of three accents of GC does not raise any doubts, whereas the third accent added in EE may come from Chopin. Therefore, in the main text we suggest variant solutions. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 222-224
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The slur added – most probably by Chopin – in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4) clearly shows that according to the composer's intention, it was not supposed to reach the next bar. The longer slur of EE may be considered in this situation an inaccurate interpretation of the slur added in the base text by Chopin (cf. bars 36-37) or an editorial revision on the basis of the analogous place of the first section of Scherzo. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Tenuto slurs |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 222-223
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The second slur under the groups of small notes is written in A (→GE1→FE→EE) inaccurately – it might have been ink stoppage. In this situation, it is possible that an additional slur, complementing the slurring of this group in GE1 (→FE→EE), was added at Chopin's request as a simplified proofreading of this inaccuracy. In turn, it is difficult to say what the motivation of the engraver of GE1 at the time of dividing the slur in bar 222 was. GE2 restored the slur of A in bar 222 and led the slur in bar 223 in an analogous way. In the main text we give the last version, being, according to us, closest to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 222
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
No accents on the 2nd and 4th crotchets in the bar is certainly an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). In GE2 the mistake was corrected; however, the differences between the accents were not taken into account. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
