|
b. 340-341
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the most likely explanation of the presence of the tie of f1 in the editions is the engraver of GE1 having mistaken the accent for a tie (other possibility is moving the slur written in A over the top voice under the stave). Chopin did not use any of a few opportunities to extend a common note of chords in the entire Tutti (also in the exposition, bars 16-24). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 340
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 340-341
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The missing slur over the top voice must be a mistake of GE1 (→FE→EE). However, it may not be a common oversight, but an atypical example of a transfer of sign: a slur was printed under the notes instead of over them, although of the same range, which gave it a form of a tie of f1 (the engraver could have been encouraged to perform such a change by, e.g. lack of space under the notes). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 340-342
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
GE overlooked the dashes marking the range of cresc. It is most probably an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||
|
b. 340
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
GE2 (→GE3) removed the rests of the solo piano part. The reason was probably the fact that they had been placed in GE1 clearly after the quaver ending the Tutti – particularly the R.H. may give an impression that the bar contains 5 quavers. The notation of FE does not pose such a threat, and the one of EE even less. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
before e
2.
