Chopin kopiujący Chopina

Studia Chopinowskie Pub Date : 2018-06-17 DOI:10.56693/sc.91
John Rink
{"title":"Chopin kopiujący Chopina","authors":"John Rink","doi":"10.56693/sc.91","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates a number of pertinent issues surrounding the copies that Chopin prepared of his own music. His propensity for making compositional changes at subsequent stages in a work’s evolution is of course well known and much documented, but his skills as a copyist – defined in terms of notational clarity, fidelity to the original source, appropriate improvements to presentation and so on – have received little comment in the literature. Close study of the two surviving autograph manuscripts of one of Chopin’s late works, the Barcarolle Op. 60, reveals not only changes of compositional substance but also indications of an inattentiveness which almost certainly prevailed when Chopin copied out the manuscripts of other pieces. Comparison with relevant first editions also helps to challenge any assumptions we might have about the unqualified authority of Chopin’s autograph sources.","PeriodicalId":223612,"journal":{"name":"Studia Chopinowskie","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Chopinowskie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56693/sc.91","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper investigates a number of pertinent issues surrounding the copies that Chopin prepared of his own music. His propensity for making compositional changes at subsequent stages in a work’s evolution is of course well known and much documented, but his skills as a copyist – defined in terms of notational clarity, fidelity to the original source, appropriate improvements to presentation and so on – have received little comment in the literature. Close study of the two surviving autograph manuscripts of one of Chopin’s late works, the Barcarolle Op. 60, reveals not only changes of compositional substance but also indications of an inattentiveness which almost certainly prevailed when Chopin copied out the manuscripts of other pieces. Comparison with relevant first editions also helps to challenge any assumptions we might have about the unqualified authority of Chopin’s autograph sources.
本文探讨了围绕肖邦为自己的音乐创作的副本的一些相关问题。他倾向于在作品演变的后续阶段改变组成,这当然是众所周知的,也有很多记录,但他作为一名抄写员的技能——从符号的清晰度、对原始来源的忠诚、对呈现方式的适当改进等方面来定义——在文献中几乎没有得到评论。仔细研究肖邦晚期作品《船颂歌》(Barcarolle Op. 60)的两份幸存的亲笔手稿,不仅可以发现创作内容的变化,而且可以看出,当肖邦抄写其他作品的手稿时,粗心大意的迹象几乎可以肯定是普遍存在的。与相关第一版的比较也有助于挑战我们可能对肖邦亲笔签名来源的不合格权威的任何假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信