Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 70
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We add an accent over the notes – see bars 13-14. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
|
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. 78-80
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text, we give the accents in bar 78 after the notation of FC, corrected by Chopin. We also apply it in bar 80, overlooked at the time of corrections, probably as a result of the composer's inattention. The versions of the editions are probably inaccurate or inconclusive (cf. bars 74-76). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 78-80
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The separation and extension of the sound of the c1 and d1 notes is marked in both analogous bars – bars 78 and 80 – only in FC (→GE with the d1 note shortened to a quaver), which has to be considered to be an inaccuracy of the remaining sources. In turn, it is uncertain whether the rhythmic value of the d1 notes, exceeding the bar, corresponds to Chopin's intention, as the lack of quaver flags can be considered here to be an oversight (this is how it was interpreted in GE). Due to the fact that we can encounter such a type of notation in other Chopin's pieces (cf. the Etude in A minor, No. 4, bar 52 or in E minor, No. 5, bar 35), in the main text we preserve the crotchets written in FC. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
