|
Notation in FE, literal reading |
|
|
Our alternative suggestion |
|
Our second alternative suggestion |
The rhythmic notation of the first half of the bar in FE is problematic – it is particularly the layout of the R.H. part against the accompaniment that is questionable. FE are not reliable in this respect: in similar situations in b. 17 and 41, the R.H. part was laid out 'at a guess,' without considering its alignment with the L.H. semiquavers (such situations can also be encountered in other pieces by Chopin). The remaining figures written in small quavers – in b. 17, 41 and 49 – fill a specific rhythmic value, which theoretically strictly determines the tempo of their performance. According to us, it is also the discussed run that should be performed in a similar tempo, filling 2 or 3 semiquavers, depending on whether we compare it with b. 17 or 41 and 49. We believe that the latter is more natural and suggest it in the main text; it was also applied in EE.
Therefore, one can ponder whether the bar contains a mistake concerning the rhythmic value of the initial a2. Had it been the quaver flag that was overlooked, the alleged Chopinesque notation – with dotted quaver – would have determined the layout we suggested based on our analysis of the runs' tempo. Moreover, the first of the suggested, faster tempo could have resulted from the Chopinesque notation if we assume that the dot extending the first a2 was added by mistake. We suggest both possibilities as alternative versions, reproducing the Chopinesque notation, perhaps distorted in the sources.
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, Inaccuracies in FE
notation: Rhythm
Back to note