Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 286
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we suggest adding an accent on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 138. The second half of this bar seems to have been written less carefully in A – cf. the note on pedalling. The accent was added in EE2 (→EE3), most probably on the same basis. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 289
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In GE1 (→FE) there is none of the three staccato dots written in A (under both bass notes and over the top most note in the R.H.), which is undoubtedly a mistake. EE added the signs in the L.H. (also in the next bar), most probably on the basis of comparison with the corresponding bar of the exposition. GE2 reproduced the notation of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 289
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 290
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The missing staccato dot over the bass E category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 290
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The missing accent is certainly a mistake of GE1 (→FE→EE). The engraver might not have been sure to which note the shifted accent applied (it was one of the ways of marking long accents in Chopin's earlier autographs – cf. bar 230). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
is certainly a result of an oversight of the engraver of 
in