mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 265

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

No marking in A

in GE (→FE→EE)
..

One could be looking for Chopin's proofreading in  appearing in the editions. However, according to us, a misunderstanding is more likely – the engraver may have introduced by mistake the marking from the previous bar, or, upon looking at the bottom of the page of ½A, he repeated  written under the double bass part in Morch.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 265-266

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Accents in A & GE2

No marks in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

There are neither traces of removal nor reasons to remove the accents in the proofreading of GE1, hence their absence is most probably an oversight. The signs were restored in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 266

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

c2 in chords in A & GE2

No c2 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The absence of c2 in the chords is almost certainly a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 271

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing accent is a patent oversight of GE1 (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 271

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

 in A

No sign in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The  hairpin is poorly visible in A from under the poco ritenuto indication. The engraver of GE1 (as well as the reviser of GE2) could have not noticed it or even considered that the indication had been written with an intention to replace (cross out) the  sign.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE