|
b. 5-11
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
The missing quaver rest in the lowest voice in the L.H. most probably results from an inaccuracy of the Chopinesque notation of [A], repeated then in FE (→GE). We add this quaver rest; similarly, in bar 11. The rests in both bars were added also by the reviser of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The distinct staccato mark at the beginning of bar 5 in A, and the identical context of motives in the 2nd halves of bars 4-5 allow us to regard the lack of a similar mark in bar 6 as an inaccuracy. Omission of the mark in bar 5 in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly a result of distraction of the engraver. GE2 corrected the mistake adding a corresponding mark in bar 6. It also supplemented the L.H. part with dots, presumably because of the R.H. part being transferred to the upper staff (in the original layout the marks over the R.H. pertain to the L.H. as well). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In GE, staccato dots under the C-c octaves were added together with the slurs. In FE (→EE) the one in bar 5 was overlooked, perhaps deliberately, taking into account the lack of a corresponding sign in the part of the R.H. GE2 completed unification of the notation of the pairs of chords in these bars, which, judging on the notation of A, did not fall within Chopin's intention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The vague placement of the slur in GE1 – it can be seen as a slur of c1-d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
in 
