|
b. 328
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we add a category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 328-329
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The division of the slur in GE (→FE), as a result of which the 2nd half in bar 328 is not embraced with a slur at all, is undoubtedly a mistake of the engraver of GE1. The version of FE – without a slur in bar 329 – can be interpreted as an oversight of FE or as a notation of the state of GE1 from before the final retouch. In the second case, the slur of GE1 in bar 329 would be an inaccurate attempt to alleviate the consequences of omission of the final one-and-a-half-bar fragment of the slur. A suitable completion of the slur, this time accurate, was introduced in EE. See also the note on the slur in the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 328-329
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The slur over the final section of the passage in the L.H. written on the bottom stave is most probably an addition of the revision of GE1 (→FE→EE). In turn, moving the beginning of this slur to bar 327, introduced in GE2, is undoubtedly a revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 328
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 328
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no accidental before the 8th semiquaver in the R.H., which requires it to be interpreted as e category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in EE |
before g2.
3. This kind of distortion of a regular, virtuoso sequence is unimaginable. Therefore, the reviser of