Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 195
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text we give the slur of A, embracing the entire phrase marked con anima in bars 195-196. GE1 (→FE→EE) reproduced only the part embracing bar 196, perhaps due to the erroneous reproduction of the tie of a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 196
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of GE1 (→FE→EE), contrary to the unquestionable notation of A, probably stems from a misunderstanding of the notation of A in the previous bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 197-199
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slurs of GE1 (→FE→EE) are a characteristic example of a schematic approach to slurs – two whole-bar slurs were printed instead of the precisely written Chopin phrase mark. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 199-201
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The missing staccato dots at the beginning of bar 197 (in both hands) and 199 can be almost certainly attributed to the inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). The signs were added in GE2 after A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 200-201
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The staccato dots at the beginning of the bars, in A written between the notes, were ignored both by the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) and the reviser of GE2. The signs are very small, since Chopin apparently did not want them to be confused with note heads. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
1 as a slur.
