Rhythm
|
b. 92
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In PE there is a crotchet with a rest in bar 92, while in bar 92/116 – a minim. One of the versions is most probably erroneous; however, there is not sufficient evidence to decide which one. To the main text we choose the minim, since the repetition of the section encompassing bars 89-96 seems to have been reproduced slightly more accurately – cf. the notes on fingering (bar 89) and the slur (bars 95-96). This version was introduced in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Errors in PE |
||||||||||
|
b. 96-97
|
composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor
..
In PE both bar 96 and bar 120 fall at the end of the page, and on the next page, the curved line that seems to be a tie to b is not continued. We assume that this is the meaning of this curved line, as it was assumed in GE, in which bars 96-97 fall within the line (in bars 120-121 GE repeated the inaccurate version of PE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in PE |
||||||||||
|
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 |
