|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A, one can have doubts concerning the type of accent Chopin wanted to use. According to us, in this context a long accent is more likely. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A it is unclear what type of accents Chopin meant on the 4th beat of these bars. According to us, the use of long accents is more likely, which is indicated by both the shape of the sign in bar 4 and the placement of the sign in bar 5: this kind of short, yet shifted signs are sometimes to be found in Chopin's autographs, cf. e.g. Ap in the Etude in A minor, Op. 10 No. 2, bar 22, 27-29, 32, 45-46. In the editions the accents were reproduced as short; moreover, they were moved between the parts of both hands – the latter could have been indicated by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The addition of slurs in the part of the L.H. may be considered a result of Chopin's proofreading. In the main text we preserve the equivalent notation of A, certainly authentic and more economical. Cf. the note to the 2nd mov., bars 57-61. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Omission of both staccato signs is certainly a result of distraction of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). The omission of the wedge also changed the meaning of the curvy line combining both c – the motivic slur transformed into a tie. It was observed only in GE2, yet, despite additions, the version of this edition only partially corresponds to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |
|||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The distinct staccato mark at the beginning of bar 5 in A, and the identical context of motives in the 2nd halves of bars 4-5 allow us to regard the lack of a similar mark in bar 6 as an inaccuracy. Omission of the mark in bar 5 in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly a result of distraction of the engraver. GE2 corrected the mistake adding a corresponding mark in bar 6. It also supplemented the L.H. part with dots, presumably because of the R.H. part being transferred to the upper staff (in the original layout the marks over the R.H. pertain to the L.H. as well). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
