Issues : 4/4 or 2/2
b. 1
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The time signature present in A1 seems to be more accurate for the melody written with minims and the quaver accompaniment. However, later in the piece, with numerous changes of time signature, it always returns as . Therefore, it seems that Chopin eventually opted for , which is confirmed by the copies based on [A2] – CJ and CK, in which this time signature was present from the beginning of the piece. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: 4/4 or 2/2 |
|||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor
..
Nothing indicates that the change of metre introduced in EE could be authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2 |
|||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 14, Prelude in E♭ minor
..
The change of time signature from to is a frequent inaccuracy of French editions – cf., e.g. the Etude in C, Op. 10 No. 1, b. 1. In the second book of Preludes, in all three provided with in A, i.e. E Minor, No. 14, B Minor, No. 16 and F Minor, No. 18, it was reproduced as . category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2 |
|||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
The change of time signature in FE probably resulted from the engraver's inattention. In Chopin's pieces, it was common that engravers did not differentiate between and , see the Prelude No. 14 in E Minor. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2 |
|||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
The marking present in FE (→EE) instead of the authentic indication must have resulted from the engraver's carelessness – see the Prelude in E minor no. 14. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2 |