Issues : Errors in CK
|
b. 13-14
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
In the main text we give a slur in the 2nd half of b. 14, written in CJ. The absence of this slur in CK and EL probably results from Kolberg's oversight. It is likely that upon seeing the text of CK devoid of slurs, Balakirev decided to repeat in CB the slur from analogous b. 5-6. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK |
|||||||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The indications concerning the a1 note at the beginning of the bar raise serious doubts due to the sources based on [A2] being incompatible – CJ and CK. In the main text we give an interpretation of the notation of CJ, in which both visible elements – slur and short category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in CK |
|||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
In the main text we include the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in CK |
|||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
CK is lacking in the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK |
|||||||||
|
b. 49
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
In CJ the slur is written over the 1st group of the L.H. quavers. The second group is marked as repetition of the first, which, in this context, most probably also concerns the slur. There is no reason to question the authenticity of this slur, hence its absence in CK is probably a result of Kolberg's oversight. The slurs in CB are part of a comprehensive revision – see b. 6-19. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK |
hairpin – can be quite easily and reasonably interpreted as a tenuto mark and a long accent. In turn, in 
in 
raising f
1 to f
1. This patent mistake was not repeated in 
