



b. 249-253
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we give the slur of FE (→EE), most probably faithfully reproducing the notation of [A]. The slur of GC (→GE) is undoubtedly inaccurate, same as in bars 61-65 – the recapitulation in the copy is marked in an abbreviated manner as repetition of the first section of Scherzo. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 249
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The erroneous pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in GE is a consequence of the imprecise notation of the end of the octave sign embracing the first two semiquavers in this bar in A (and the last four of the previous one). In GE1 the notation was reproduced too literally (erroneously), not taking into account both the graphical context and analogous figures in the next bars. The mistake was not repeated in FE (→EE), although the notation of EE is not entirely clear. In turn, the misunderstanding of Chopin's intention in GE2 is puzzling, in which the erroneous pitch of the discussed note was repeated, although the notation does not include an octave sign. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||
b. 249
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 249
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The sources feature a rather unnecessary category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Cautionary accidentals , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||
b. 249-250
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we preserve the notation of A, in which only every second quaver in the L.H. was provided with staccato dots. Therefore, the signs also designate delicate accents, which partly disappeared in the version of the editions. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |