Issues : FE revisions
|
b. 165
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI and AF are lacking in the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 166
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AI there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 167
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The semiquaver opening the bassoon motif was given the form of a slashed grace note in GE, which could have been influenced by the notation of A, in which the grace note is unusually small. On the other hand, in A it is written as a semiquaver, in accordance with the rhythm in Morch in the part of bassoon, which is playing this motif. Therefore, it is unlikely that a grace note would be compliant with Chopin's intention. The reason for the change could have been formal rhythmic correctness, since due to the lack of rests before this note, only a grace note fits smoothly between three crotchets of this bar. In turn, it is difficult to say what the motivation of the person (Chopin?) who changed the grace note to a quaver in FE (→#EE) was. In the main text we choose the undoubtedly authentic notation of A, adding the rest overlooked by Chopin for the record. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 167
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Differently than in analogous bars 161-166 and 168, in GE both slurs begin from the 2nd quaver in the group. It is almost certainly a result of proofreading – probably a Chopin one – since the slurs of A, particularly the second one, are exceptionally inaccurate here. The difference in slurring was not included in FE (→EE), which may be explained by distraction or a unifying revision. It is also possible that the slurs in GE1 were changed in the last phase of proofreading, already after the copies had been sent to Paris. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 169
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The tie visible in GC before the chord means an arpeggio in this context. The version of GE, repeated then in EE2, is a result of a routine revision – the sign was moved to the side of the note head of the d1 grace note, which gave it a form of a tie sustaining the grace note (cf. the note on the part of the L.H.). No slur in FE (→EE1) is most probably an oversight. FE1 includes an erroneous c1 as the grace note, which was corrected in the next impressions. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions |
lowering d
to d. The patent inaccuracy was corrected in 
