Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 179-180
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The overlooked staccato dots on the g1 crotchet in bar 179 and the 1st chord in bar 180 are certainly mistakes of GE1 (→FE→EE). Both signs were added in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 181
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of the accent in the majority of the editions is most probably an oversight of the engraver – in similar motifs (e.g. bars 19-22 or 185) the syncopation is always accented. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 182-184
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The accent over the minim in bar 182 in A is undoubtedly long, which was not reproduced in the editions. According to us, the absence of the sign in an analogous situation in bar 184 must be considered Chopin's inadvertence – in Morch corresponding signs are in all parts performing this motif (cellos, double basses and trombones). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
b. 185
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The later started sign is a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1, who would adjust hairpins and slurs to beams or bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
b. 188
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In such a context, the staccato dots written over the R.H. (as it is in A, GE and FE) are valid also in the L.H. In the main text, we suggest adding signs in the L.H. due to the added accents in the previous bar and change of the placement of the dots in the R.H. category imprint: Editorial revisions |