Issues : Authentic corrections of FC
|
b. 15-19
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we adopt a homogeneous form of accents at the beginning of bars 15, 17 and 19 – the long accents between the parts of both hands. As a model we adopt the accent written by Chopin in FC in bar 19. As an alternative we suggest long accents over the bottom stave, modelled on the ones Chopin probably added in bars 71, 73, 75 and 79. Similarly in bars 23, 25 and 27. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 15-17
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In FC one can see deletions of dynamic indications – category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 16-20
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The accents in bars 16, 18 and 20 are written in the sources in the most varied way possible (here we discuss only 8 accents, without the 1st accent in bar 18 – see the note in that bar). The corrections visible in FC in bar 18, confirmed with similar changes in analogous bars 24, 26 and 28, prove that Chopin wanted to provide the 3rd and 4th beat of these bars with long accents, placed over the bottom stave. Similar corrections concerning the 2nd beat of the bar are visible in bars 72 and 78. According to us, it most probably meant that in all analogous bars the composer considered long accents placed between the staves to be most accurate, as we suggest it in the main text. Therefore, we consider the short accents in bars 16 and 20 to be the original version, left by inattention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we give long accents, written most probably by Chopin in FC. In this copy, one can also see deletions of the previously written accents under the part of the L.H., which shows that the double accents of FE is a previous version. Lack of the signs in EE1 (→EE2) is certainly a mistake, corrected in EE3 on the basis of GE1. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 26-28
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
Same as in bar 24, in the main text we give long accents, written most probably by Chopin in FC. The missing first sign in bar 28 is certainly an oversight, corrected in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
in bar 15 and 
in bar 17. It seems to prove a radical change of the dynamic concept of this fragment (probably until bar 23, in which there is 
), yet it is possible that Chopin only thought that it is not the only possible concept and he did not want to impose it upon the performers. Resignation from these indications can also be explained taking their placement as the starting point – both were written more or less under the 2nd beat of the bar, hence they could have referred to the extended passages, filling the sound of the accentuated notes opening the bars. The composer could have then assumed that such an evident attenuation is not necessary in order to achieve an effect of the phrase's continuity.
