Issues : Authentic corrections of GE
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
We consider the version of A (→GE1) to be erroneous, which is indicated by the orchestral part – an F in cellos and double basses is both in the later version of AsI and in the voices of GE and FE. The correct version of FE almost certainly resulted from Chopin's correction, probably introduced still into the copy of GE1 serving as the basis for that edition – there are no visible traces of changes in print. The corrections present in GE2 (→GE3,FESB) and EE2 (→EE3) can be considered revisions on the basis of orchestral parts. In the case of GE2, Chopin's intervention is also likely; his participation in the preparation of that edition is generally questionable, yet it cannot be excluded to a limited extent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 27 No 2, Nocturne in D♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors of A , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 3, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
A has no pedal release mark in this bar. A comparison with the concurrent version in all analogous bars (9, 29 & 33) lets us regard this lack as a mistake. In the main text, in keeping with the A notation in these bars we supplement the mark at the end of bar. In GE1 (→FE→EE) the asterisk was added under a rest, in accordance to a rule applied by GE in the entire opus. It is probably an editor's revision although Chopin's correction cannot be completely ruled out. The mark's placement in AI is not quite clear— falls under the R.H. quaver g1 but before the rest in the L.H. We take the latter relation as authoritative. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections |
||||||||||||
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The vague placement of the slur in GE1 – it can be seen as a slur of c1-d1 (literal interpretation) or c1-b (interpretation of FE) or even a-b – points to a possibility of the engraver's mistake. Due to this reason, in the main text we present the unquestionable slur of A. According to us, however, Chopin's proofreading cannot be excluded; it could have been inaccurately implemented by the engraver. In this case, we consider the slur of a-b to be a version probably intended by Chopin. The version of EE is most probably arbitrary, whereas GE2 restored the text of A. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |