Issues : Errors resulting from corrections
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 27 No 2, Nocturne in D♭ major
..
The deletion in A allows one to see that originally Chopin wrote the sixth e2-c sharp3 as the 3rd quaver of the bar. The change was probably made after the whole bar had been written in - the proof of that is the raising c2 to c sharp2 in the second half of the bar. category imprint: Corrections & alterations issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections |
|||||
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 27 No 2, Nocturne in D♭ major
..
All the sources have the unnecessary before c sharp2, the lower note of the 3rd semiquaver. This is probably a remnant of the initial version of the 3rd quaver of that bar. category imprint: Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information |
|||||
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major
..
Just like in b. 34-35, Chopin changed the pitch of the 2nd and 4th notes in A from g1-f1 to b1-a1. In this case, however, the crossing-out of both noteheads also includes the stems (pointing downwards) of the separated quaver voice, which resulted in it having been overlooked both in FC (→GE1) and FE (→EE). Assuming a mistake, GE2 (→GE3) separated both notes after the previous bars. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Deletions in A |
|||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
Before the top note on the 7th semiquaver, the returning f is only in GE4 (→GE5). It means the sound of f in AI and in the aforementioned GE, and f in the remaining sources. However, there is no doubt that the missing is Chopin's oversight, related to the correction on the 2nd semiquaver. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors of A |
|||||
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
at the beginning of the bar was written in Atut in place of the previous . The absence of a marking in FE (→GE,EE) means that the engraver of FE probably did not understand this correction, considering the mark written in bold font to be a deletion of . In the main text, we preserve the version of Atut, in which Chopin reviewed and corrected the dynamic markings – cf. e.g. bar 20 and 32. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections |