Rhythm
|
b. 18
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The rhythm written on the 2nd beat of the bar both in A1 and the copies of [A2] – CJ and CK (as well as EL) – is either incomplete (missing indication of an irregular group) or erroneous (the semiquavers should have been demisemiquavers). In order to minimise the scope of an editorial intervention, in the main text we suggest the former; the latter was implemented by Balakirev in his copy. In practice, the difference between them is negligible. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Rhythmic errors |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 20
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
From the next bar the R.H. part is in 3/4 time signature in A1 – see b. 21-32. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 21-31
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
In b. 21-22, 25-26 and 30-32 in A1, the R.H. part is in 3/4 time signature, whereas in the L.H. part the regular quaver accompaniment continues in category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
Extending the b category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Kolberg's revisions , Balakirev's revisions |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The notation of this bar in CJ and CK may be misleading – it contains 5 crotchets, divided 2+3 with a simultaneous change of tempo so that the 3 crotchets of the second half of the bar last as long as the 2 in the first half. It is evident when one has access to A1, in which the origin and hence the correctness of such an interpretation directly results from the polymetric notation of the 1st half of the bar continued from the previous bars. However, the notation of the aforementioned copies does not offer any hints as to such an interpretation of this notation. Therefore, we introduce additions specifying the structure of the bar and the relationship between its parts. It was also Balakirev and Kolberg that introduced changes striving in this direction. The former divided the bar in two in his copy, whereas the latter signalised the structure of the bar in EL by putting two small lines between the 2nd and 3rd beats. The dotted rhythm on the 2nd beat of the bar is probably a mistake of the copyist – see the note in the 2nd half of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Kolberg's revisions , Balakirev's revisions |
time signature (two R.H. bars correspond to one L.H. bar). We number the bars after the L.H. part. After b. 21 and 25, where the endings of the bars coincide, Chopin marked this synchronisation with a vertical, dotted line, combining the bar lines on both staves. In our transcription we reproduce these lines as dashed and add them also after b. 30-31. This is the only example of polymeter in Chopin's music. An analogous difference is present also in the 1st half of 
& quaver a in 
in 
a suggested by the editors
raising b to b
