Issues : Inaccuracies in JC
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
|
b. 32
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
When interpreted literally, the rhythm written down in CJ suggests a very unnatural combination of four crotchets in the R.H. and five in the L.H. Taking into account the inaccurate alignment between the L.H. and the R.H. (cf., e.g. 2 previous bars), in the 2nd half of the bar we get two crotchets in the R.H. against three in the L.H. While such polymeter is present in an earlier version of A1 (in the previous bars), in [A2] Chopin replaced it with simpler, regular rhythmic divisions. Such a change in the opposite direction, not marked in any way, is inconceivable here, hence we consider this notation to be Ludwika's mistake. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of JC , Inaccuracies in JC |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 35-43
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
These 9 bars were written by Chopin on the bottom stave only both in A1 and [A2] (→CJ); CB also applied such notation. At the same time, all sources – including CK and EL, in which a few/several dozen notes and rests were added on the top stave – convey the general idea of division into hands expressed through the direction of the stems and arrangement of the rests. In turn, as far as the details are concerned, there are many differences between them, which, however, are of no practical meaning; some of them are simply mistakes or simplifications related to the notation of repeated figures. Due to this reason, we do not discuss them in detail, leaving a possible analysis to the reader. The version suggested in the main text is based on CJ; we only complement the notation of b. 37-38, in which some of the L.H. rests were overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in JC , Kolberg's revisions |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 47
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The mark written over the c category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in JC |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 48
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The last note of the 1st semiquaver triplet is written in A1 as c In the remaining sources the notation is enharmonically homogeneous, yet also inaccurate – none of the sources includes the category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place , Inaccuracies in JC |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 57-61
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
There is no doubt that the slurs in A1, CJ, CK and EL are supposed to encompass the irregular group of small notes, filling the 2nd half of each of these bars. However, it was not written accurately enough in the manuscripts, as a result of which it is only some of the slurs that actually span from the first to the last note (b. 59 in A1 and 57 in CJ and CK). The remaining ones are shorter, sometimes only one note shorter, but in the extreme case – b. 58 in CJ – the slur encompasses only 12 out of 35 semiquavers. We reproduce these inaccuracies only in the graphic transcriptions of the particular sources. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in JC , Inaccuracies in CK |
2 crotchet in 
3. This puzzling notation – later in the sequence, a respective note an octave lower is already written as d2 (without the necessary 
, which is a typical Chopinesque inaccuracy) – was initially also in b. 15, in which it was, however, changed by Chopin. Since all the sources coming from [A2] feature d3, we consider the presence of c
before this note.- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »