|
b. 128
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In the main text we suggest adding an accent after the previous 3 bars. The absence of the mark is probably an oversight by the engraver, who overlooked it in a new line. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 139-142
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
The four whole-bar slurs of the sources, if they correspond to the notation of [A] at all, in this context mean only legato articulation. Longer slurs, especially of irregular shape, were then replaced by shorter ones, easier to engrave. Musically unjustified divisions also occurred in manuscripts, e.g. between lines. Taking into account the above, in the main text we encompass the entire passage with one slur in order not to suggest divisions, whose position and number could be accidental. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 143
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
The notation of PE1 (→PE2), which is devoid of the 1st beat of the bar on the top stave, although formally inaccurate, could be authentic, since Chopin would often omit rests specifying the voice scheme or filling the bar in quasi-polyphonic notation (e.g. in the R.H. in bars 117-119). Therefore, in the main text we leave it unchanged, since it seems unlikely that it could mislead the performers. In GE the bar on the top stave was completed by replacing 2 crotchet rests with a semibreve rest. An interesting yet rather unfortunate attempt at correcting the initial version of notation was made in PE3 by adding an additional stem to the bottom note of the octave, E1. This addition was removed in PE4, thus restoring the version of PE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in PE , Revisions in #PE |
