Issues : Different values of chord components
|
b. 74
|
composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major
..
The sources differ in the rhythmic values of particular chord components, which probably stems from the notation of the manuscripts, which were either unclear or unintelligible for the engravers. A may be interpreted in 2 ways: it is not certain whether 3 lower notes of the chord are supposed to be minims or semi breves. The second notation is rhythmically exact, yet the notation of the last quaver with the stem directed downwards suggests that Chopin understood the ending of the bar monophonically. Considering the fact that Chopin would sometimes write chord components without stems (in the case of crotchets it does not lead to misunderstandings), we see that the notation in A may be understood in such way as it was done in GE. Together with the application of authentic pedalling its sound equals the notation with semi breves; practically, it is even closer to the real performance (the c1 note cannot be held longer than for a minim, as it is struck in the L.H.). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Different values of chord components |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 77
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In the main text we preserve the precisely differentiated duration of particular elements of the chord written in A. In FE (→GE,EE) the B category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The value of minim, given to the bottom note of the c1-f1 fourth in FE (→GE,EE), is most probably erroneous. In the main text we give the written in A crotchet, which we however write with a separate stem in order to avoid ambiguity. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Different values of chord components , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 84
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
Homogenising the rhythmic values of all elements of the 2nd chord in the R.H. was not probably an intention of Chopin. The notation is only seemingly inaccurate in this place – the logic of leading the voices make us consider a category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 85
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The notation of the octave a1-a2 in FE and GE is certainly inaccurate, which was corrected by the reviser of #EE. In that edition, however, one extending dot was added next to a1, which indicates a misunderstanding of Chopin's simplified notation, in which the progression a1-g1 of the lower voice was not separated. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Different values of chord components , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
note was erroneously attributed the value of a semibreve. 
in 
