Issues : Authentic corrections of FE
b. 264
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The top most note of the chord on the 4th quaver in GE1 (→FE1) is an erroneous b3. The mistake was corrected – most probably by Chopin – in the proofreading of FE2 (→EE). The correct version is also in GE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||
b. 272
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Chopin added the e1 crotchet, overlooked in GE1, in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It was also added in GE2. In the main text we provide it with a cautionary . category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||
b. 272
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The arpeggio with grace notes is written in A in a legible manner, offering a clear image of the order in which the particular notes are to be performed – d1-f1-g1-b1-a1. Unfortunately, the notation cannot be reproduced in print without considerably deforming the spaces between the notes, since the printed note heads are much wider than in Chopin's writing. However, the solution adopted in GE1 is misleading – it suggests a g1-b1-d1-f1-a1 order. It provoked Chopin's proofreading in FE (→EE), as a result of which it is much easier to guess the correct performance. We give the latter, more graphically convenient than the version of A, in the main text. Apart from the proofreading of the ornaments' notation, in FE (→EE) the division into voices of this chord was also changed – f1, which in A (→GE) is a crotchet of the bottom voice, was assigned in FE to the top one, which shortened its value to a quaver. The difference, although subtle, could have been intended by Chopin, hence in the main text we also give this detail in the version of FE. The note, already as a quaver, was then extended in EE by adding a dot. According to us, also this version, although formally not coming from Chopin, can be a notation of his intention, actually the most precise one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||
b. 272
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The middle note of the arpeggiated chord, f1, is a crotchet of the bottom voice in A (→GE). In FE it was assigned to the top one, which shortened its value to a quaver – it is probably a result of Chopin's proofreading. In EE, an extending dot was added to the quaver adopted from FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||
b. 274
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of the bottom voice, appearing in GE instead of the slur of the top voice written in A, is probably a mistake, although its addition by Chopin cannot be entirely excluded (e.g. if in the proof copy no slur was included, Chopin could have added two and the engraver only the bottom one). In any case, in the proofreading of FE (→EE) Chopin restored the top slur, without removing the bottom one, so that next to the version of A one can also notice the version of FE with two slurs. In the main text we give the version of A, since the authenticity of the bottom slur is not as unquestionable as of the top one; moreover, the top slur applies to the entire part of the R.H. by default. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |