Issues : Rhythmic errors
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor
..
It does not seem that the fact of shortening this bar present in the sources – it includes only three crotchets – had any practical or expressive meaning, as it is compensated by the fermata over the final rest. Due to this fact, in the main text we suggest a minim for this rest, compatible with the time signature. Perhaps at an earlier stage of composing the Etude Chopin introduced here certain changes and did not check the rhythmic notation diligently. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Rhythmic errors |
|||||
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 43, Tarantella
..
In A the last note of the LH part is not dotted. In the copies and subsequent editions this omission was supplemented. Compare annotation in b. 4. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A |
|||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 43, Tarantella
..
In all sources except GE4 the crotchet beginning the second half of the bar in RH is not dotted. It may have resulted from inaccurate notation in A. Compare annotation in b. 4. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A |
|||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The simplified Chopinesque notation is formally erroneous – the c1 minim does not last to the end of this bar, hence it cannot be sustained to the next one. On the other hand, despite inaccuracies, the notation seems unequivocal, which is supported by, e.g. the absence of corrections in the editions. Chopin would often forgo rhythmic precision in favour of more malleable or readable notation. In the main text we suggest a specified version, which does not seem excessively complicated. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Rhythmic errors |