|
b. 213
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 213
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The Viol. indication, added in GE1, may be authentic. Chopin could have had two reasons to specify the instrumentation: the reduction does not include here an important motif of the flute and oboe; moreover, in GE1 the dots and the slur written in A were overlooked. The possibility that the articulation markings were deliberately replaced with this indication seems to be much less likely. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
|
b. 213-214
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 214
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 214-215
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to imagine that Chopin, when proofreading GE1, could have added slurs in the L.H. in this form: the added slur, analogous with the slur in the R.H. (cf. the slur in GE2), was either reproduced in a simplified manner (GE1 avoided long slurs, requiring a precise adjustment) or it is simply an editorial revision. Since in such a context the slur over the R.H. is valid also for the L.H., in the main text we leave the notation of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
is probably an oversight of the engraver of 
