Issues : Authentic corrections of FC
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
|
b. 42-43
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In FC one can see corrections of the 10th and 13th semiquavers in both bars and of the 5th and 8th semiquavers in bar 43. Everywhere, c2(3) notes were erased and b1(2) added. It is most probably an auto-correction of the copyist, which is proved by the typeface of naturals before the added notes and lack of visible corrections (although they are not entirely excluded) in the notation of three b notes. On the other hand, if the text was clear in the copied manuscript (probably [A]), without corrections, such a significant mistake of such an experienced copyist as Fontana (after all, a professional composer and pianist) seems to be inexplicable. Therefore, what we see may be a preserved trace of the authentic original version of these bars, in which the middle note in the R.H. was always c (in different octaves). category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 71-75
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In bars 71, 73, 75, in the main text we give long accents, placed over the bottom stave and probably written by Chopin in FC. It is not clear why this notation was not reproduced in GE – probably the notation of bars 17, 19, 23, 25, 27 and 77 was considered to be more accurate and it was generalised for all analogous bars. It cannot be excluded that the engravers of FE and EE followed this pattern, so in these editions the authenticity of the graphical shape of the accents is also uncertain. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 72
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we give long accents written with Chopin's hand in FC instead of short accents placed in a way it can be seen in EE1 (→EE2). The long accents on the 2nd and 3rd beats were also introduced in the proofreading of FE (without deleting the original ones). According to us, it was a simplified correction, aimed at both replacing the short accents under the stave with long ones and at removing the accents on the 11th and 15th semiquavers (see the next note). The meaning of the signs placed closer to the top stave probably raised doubts of Chopin's pupil, as FED includes accents added in pencil directly over the 9th and 13th semiquavers of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 74-76
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We reproduce the long accents in bars 74 and 76 on the basis of FC, in which Chopin corrected the accents in a few analogous places and he probably added them also in these bars (at least some of them, e.g., the last two in bar 74). The long accents are present also in FE, yet as a whole, the notation of this source seems to be a result of simplified corrections of the original notation with the accents under the part of the L.H. (similarly in bars 78-80). The missing signs in the 2nd half of bar 74 in EE are probably a mistake – see the next note. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 77-79
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text, we give the accent in bar 79 on the basis of FC, where it could have been written by Chopin (cf. bars 71-75). The sign in bar 77 is probably the original version of the accent, left by inattention, analogous to the signs present in the passages including one bar only, hence we suggest there a long accent based on analogous bars. This is the notation, probably original, that is included in FE in bar 77 and in EE and GE in both discussed bars. The notation of FE in bar 79, used in this context only there, may be erroneous (see also bars 74-76). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Authentic corrections of FC |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »