|
b. 87
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In the main text, we add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 88
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In the main text we add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information issues: Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||||||
|
b. 89-112
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In all sources, these bars are not provided with repeat signs, but are written out in full twice. The texts of both appearances of this section are practically the same – the existing minor differences are inaccuracies or mistakes in the reproduction of the basis or a result of corrections in one of analogous places. Therefore, it is almost certain that in [A] Chopin marked the repetition with repeat signs (or with an informal abbreviation, if [A] was of a working nature). The preserved manuscripts of other pieces, not prepared for publication by Chopin, clearly show that the aim was to achieve maximally concise notation – cf., e.g. one of the autographs of the Waltz in F minor, WN 55 or various autographs of the Waltzes, Op. 64 Nos. 1 and 2. There are also documented examples of changes to the way of writing repetitions introduced by editors, e.g. the Polonaise in C We provide the text of the sources in full version only in the graphic transcription (version 'transcript'). The double numeration of bars used in transcriptions – the number of a bar in the main text and in the content transcriptions slash the number of a bar in the images of the sources – allows for easy identification of corresponding fragments. Including 23 additional bars in graphic transcriptions required significant changes to the layout, as a result of which the note tags, related to the content transcriptions, do not signal with their position the fragments of the text they concern in the graphic transcriptions. Whenever differences between both appearances of a given place occur, in the content transcriptions (versions 'edited text') we use variants to show the other version. If the difference consists in the presence or absence of a mark, we give it in brackets when it appears the first time, and in square brackets when it appears the second time. We provide different forms of the same mark, e.g. slurs or dynamic hairpins of varying range, next to each other, the mark from bars 89-111 without brackets, closer to the text, while the mark from bars 113-135 – in square brackets. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 89
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
The digit '4' over the last quaver is present in the sources only the second time (bar 89/113). The mark in bar 89 was most probably overlooked by the engraver of PE (→GE). In the main text we give the complete notation of bar 89/113. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in PE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 90-92
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In bars 90 and 92 and in their written-out repetitions, the 1st R.H. chord has three versions in PE. None of them seem authentic:
In the main text we give the version of GE, which, according to us, is the most likely reconstruction of [A], performed on the basis of PE1. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Errors in PE , Revisions in #PE |
before the g
2 grace note.
to e2. The accidental is present in the sources in all analogous places.
