b. 278
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A there is no restoring a. This patent mistake – cf. analogous bar 130 – remained unnoticed by Chopin both during the proofreading and lessons. Revisers of the editions also did not notice it. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , Errors of A |
||||||
b. 278-279
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs of GE (→FE→EE) could have been added by Chopin; however, according to us, it is highly unlikely due to their schematic range, whose relationship with the figuration's structure is largely unconvincing. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
b. 278
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, omission of the additional quaver stem next to f1 is a result of the Chopin proofreading of FE (→EE), which is indicated by possible traces of correction in print in this place (e.g. a slightly bigger note head of the note). Taking into account the fact that in analogous bar 130 f1 is not extended, one can come to a conclusion that Chopin could have written the fourth stem in the discussed bar by mistake. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
b. 280
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
b. 280
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of A seems to be inaccurate – in this context it is difficult to assume that e1 were to be separated from the previous quavers (cf. analogous bar 132). Therefore, the version of GE may be a result of Chopin's proofreading. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |