Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 48
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The unquestionable long accent written in A was reproduced in GE as short and in FE (→EE1) it was overlooked. There seems to be no reason to attribute any of these changes to Chopin's intervention. In subsequent EE the accent was most probably added after GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 49-50
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In A (→GE→FE) there is no treble clef in bar 50 (we do not include the sign written in pencil with a foreign hand, probably later). In GE (→FE) the bass clef in bar 49 was also overlooked. The mistake was corrected in EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The version of the editions is almost certainly erroneous – perhaps the engraver of GE mistook the hastily written minim rests of the solo part for dots extending the crotchets. FE overlooked the minim rest of the R.H. If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was selected, the first version is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 52
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur written in A embraces only this bar, yet the slur in the next bar (on a new page of the manuscript) clearly indicates continuation. In the main text we assume that it is the second slur that determines Chopin's intention in this place. The slur of GE1 (→FE) is clearly erroneous, which was revised in EE and GE2. In that editions, a slur in the part of the L.H. was also added, which can be considered to be justified with regard to the consistent slurring of the parts of both hands in the remaining sections of this fragment (bars 44-45). If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the first three source versions is to be selected here. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 53
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The notation of the accents in the 1st half of the bar is not entirely clear. In A the first accent has arms of different length, so that it is uncertain whether a long or short sign is to be considered here. The analogy with similar motifs at the beginning of bars 48-49 and 54-55 encourage us to consider it a long accent (our main text). On the other hand, none of the aforementioned bars includes an accent on the 2nd beat, which undermines the power of this analogy. If the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen in the previous note, one of the versions without accents for the L.H. (second or sixth) is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
