|
b. 309
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The traces of erasure, visible in A, allow to read the original version of the 1st half of the bar, in which the last note was an a1. In this version, the 3rd and 4th quavers were written in the treble clef, in which the removed note was written; however, it is unknown whether the correction of the moment of the beginning of the slur is to be linked to the change of the last note. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Accompaniment changes |
||||||||
|
b. 309
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the staccato dot over the 5th quaver in the bar may be Chopin's mistake. Therefore, we suggest an alternative version without staccato. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 309
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Dragging the slur to the minim in this bar is a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1. The slur in the L.H. in GE2 is an arbitrary addition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 309-310
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Starting the slur from the beginning of the bar is a typical inaccuracy of GE1 (→FE→EE), corrected in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 309-310
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we adopt the change introduced in GE. While proofreading FE in similar places (bars 291-294 and 307-308), Chopin replaced shorter slurs with one two-bar slur three times; therefore, it is highly likely that leaving this place without correction was either an oversight (of Chopin or the engraver) or an acceptance of a version that was not ideal, but a version that did not significantly distort the phrasing. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
