Issues : EE revisions
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
The rhythm notation in GE, in which the rhythmic values of both marked voices of the R.H. add up to a dotted minim written in the L.H., is formally correct and makes musical and pianistic sense. There is no reason to doubt its compliance with [A]. Adding in FE (→EE1→EE2) of the dots extending the octave a1-a2 is most probably the engraver's fault, as he failed to grasp that the minim d sharp 2 was supposed to sound on the 3rd beat of the bar together with g sharp1-f sharp2-g sharp2. The version of EE3, clearly erroneous, could have originated as a result of an unfinished attempt to restore the version of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
In GE (→FE) there are no sharps restoring F-f in the 10th octave of the quaver group. The F sound would be less natural on both melodic grounds (augmented second) and harmonic ones (the key of C minor). Omissions of that type are sometimes found in Chopin’s notation, cf. e.g. Etude in C minor Op. 10 No 12, bar 18. According to this we supplement sharps in the main text. The signs have been added in EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration |
|||||||||||
b. 84-85
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
The slur in EE is certainly an inauthentic addition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 86-87
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
The slur in EE is certainly an inauthentic addition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 86
|
composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor
..
The in EE is certainly an inauthentic addition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |