Issues : Kolberg's revisions
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »
b. 31
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
Extending the b quaver to a crotchet, which results in a g(a)-b third at the end of the bar, is probably a specification of notation introduced in [A2]. The additional stem is absent in CK (→CB), whereas in EL this note is a crotchet, since the last quaver was omitted. It is almost certainly Kolberg's revision, suggesting his knowledge of the authentic notation of [A2], although it had not been reproduced in CK – he could have considered the additional stem to be a correction of the text of the last beat of the bar. The aforementioned third leads to a-c1 in the next bar, which is slightly obscured by the Chopinesque simplified orthography (in CB the last quaver is written as g; however, the raising b to b in the penultimate one was overlooked). In the main text we add a cautionary to the Chopinesque a. 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 |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 35-41
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
The additional notes in the R.H. part present in b. 35-36 and 39-40 in CK – c2-d2, echoing an authentic ending of the melody in b. 32-33 – are most probably Kolberg's inauthentic addition, since they are absent both in A1 and CJ, based on [A2], just like CK. CB also confirms the lack of authenticity thereof – Balakirev did not see them in the copied manuscript that was either CK before the notes were added or another copy of Kolberg in which they were simply absent. These motifs, in an already elaborate form, appear in EL in b. 35-37 and – moved an octave lower – in b. 39-41. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Kolberg's revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
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. 35-36
|
composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione
..
In the main text we stick to the notation of CJ, since Kolberg could have moved the indication dim. so that it does not contradict the continuation of the dynamics, valid half a bar ago. Such a literal interpretation of these indications would also explain the omission of dim. in EL. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Kolberg's revisions , Revisions in EL |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »