|
b. 197-198
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Similarly as in b. 53-54, of which the discussed bars are a literal repetition, in the main text we suggest a [ category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 197
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The second sixth in EE is a semiquaver, which is a patent mistake, although there is no visible reason for such an error – the most likely explanation seems to be that the semiquaver beam was added a great stave too high, i.e. instead of b. 203. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 197-198
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The missing slur in FE (→EE1→EE2) is almost certainly a mistake by the engraver. In GE and EE3, the slur was added probably on the basis of a comparison with analogous motifs. (In the case of GE it could have been one of the places possibly corrected by Chopin while proofreading the basis for that edition, while in the case of EE3 a repetition of the slur after GE cannot be excluded.) The slur of EE3 was probably added as a result of a comparison with analogous motifs, or perhaps on the basis of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 197
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The accent added by FE (→GE) looks more like a common short accent. However, it is more likely that Chopin wrote a longer mark while the engraver of FE reproduced it in a standard manner. An example of this could be the accents in b. 201-205, undoubtedly long in A; in FE, they are virtually identical to the discussed one (the form of typical Chopinesque short accents can be seen on the same page of A, in b. 208-213). Due to the above, in the main text we suggest a long accent. The easiest explanation for the presence of a long accent in EE is the engraver's inaccuracy. The placement of the accent is a more serious issue – according to us, it is likely that Chopin wrote it over e1, which was misinterpreted by the editions. Justification for this assumption – see the previous note. Accents (or other marks) ascribed to other notes by mistake can also be found in other pieces by Chopin (cf., e.g. the misplaced slur in b. 172-173 in the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, III mov.). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 197-198
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The deletions visible in A allow us to discover that:
category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Errors of A , Deletions in A , Enharmonic corrections |
in 
1-g
in mind. The presence of the notes without sharps suggests that in the draft autograph (lost), on the basis of which Chopin wrote