|
b. 384-385
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The slurs/ties added in FE and EE, although certainly inauthentic, most probably correspond to the performance intended by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 384
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The small accent, intersected by the bar line, was omitted in GE (→FE,EE,IE). We interpret it as a long accent due to its resemblance with the previous three, and this is how we reproduce it in the main text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 385
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The clear wedge written in A was reproduced in GE as a dot. In FE the sign is copied so inaccurately that it cannot be considered a staccato dot; this explains its absence in EE. A possible removal of the dot in FE by Chopin, which could have left such a trace, should be excluded, according to us. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Wedges |
||||||||
|
b. 385-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In GE2, staccato dots in the part of the L.H. were added at the beginning of bars 385 and 387 together with the slurs. See also bars 387-388. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 385-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of the L.H., being a repetition of a respective slur in the R.H., is certainly an addition of the revision of EE and GE2. In the case of GE2, in which the slur in the R.H. has the same range as in A, the compliance of this addition with Chopin's intention is not entirely excluded – see bars 376-377. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
