Verbal indications
b. 12-14
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Omissions of dashes, marking the range of a dynamic (or agogic) change, is a very frequent inaccuracy in first editions of Chopin's works. According to us, Chopin marked the range of the crescendo inaccurately – in A the dashes simply end at the end of the page; such situations would often result in missing endings of such elements of notation as slurs, dynamic hairpins or the very dashes after verbal indications in autographs (and other kinds of sources). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Omissions of dashes marking the range of a dynamic change is a typical inaccuracy of Chopin first editions. The sign, added perhaps by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1, seems to be an ad hoc attempt to correct this inaccuracy, see the adjacent note. Due to this reason, in the main text we leave the notation of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The indication is written in A on the border of the bottom stave (at the height of the motif in the L.H.), as a result of which in GE (→FE→EE) it was assigned to the L.H. and placed under the bottom stave. According to us, it does not correspond to Chopin's intention and – in spite of a somewhat misleading placement – refers to the parts of both hands. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||
b. 101-103
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The missing dashes marking the range of cresc. is a typical inaccuracy of GE1 (→FE→EE). The dashes were added in GE2, leading them – differently than in A – to in bar 104. According to us, the notation of A is indeed inaccurate, hence in the main text we suggest an appropriate extension of the dashes' range. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||
b. 111
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
When interpreted literally, both are written in A in a way it was performed in GE1. However, according to us, the second sign concerns the quaver motif in the L.H. and this is the interpretation we give in the main text. It is difficult to state why FE (→EE1) did not print any of those signs; it was probably due to distraction. In GE2 the second sign was considered superfluous and it was removed. In this context, one has to acknowledge the intuition of the reviser of EE2 (→EE3) who found the correct solution only on the basis of GE1, hence not having seen A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |