Issues : Authentic corrections of GE
|
b. 284-285
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The earlier beginning of the slur in the editions may be a result of the Chopin proofreading of GE1. However, not being certain thereof, in the main text we give the version of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 285
|
composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE , Authentic corrections of EE |
|||||||||
|
b. 285-289
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text we give the cresc. written in bar 285 in A and extended by dashes to the end of bar 289 (we suggest to extend the dashes to the end of bar 290 so that they lead to a natural point, which in this case is category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 287
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
This time the
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 289
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to qualify the replacement of three two-note slurs of A with a whole-bar slur in GE1 as a mistake or a result of a routine approach of the engraver. It also does not seem to be a proofreading, understood as a change of the slurring of A. According to us, the following hypothesis is likely – the engraver initially printed the bar without any slurs (he also overlooked all staccato dots), which was perhaps corrected by Chopin, by adding one slur. In the main text we give the slurs of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. They were also introduced in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
in this place is present in 
returning d
2 overlooked by Chopin – as in analogous 
