



b. 339-340
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we add cautionary accidentals – a category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Revisions in FESB |
||||||||
b. 339
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It is difficult to say how the
The version with an ornament, undoubtedly authentic, can be considered an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
b. 340
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The inclusion of the bottom note of the octave (F) to the solo part is certainly a result of a mistake of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) who printed it in a font of a normal size. Chopin also contributed to the mistake, using a simplified, one-voice notation of this octave (differently than in bar 16). Cf. bars 30-32. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 340-341
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The missing accent in GE1 (→FE→EE) is almost certainly a mistake – the engraver most probably interpreted this sign as a tie of f1. An accent (short) was added in GE2, yet the tie was not omitted. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
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 |