Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 71-72
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The lack – total or partial – of pedalling markings is undoubtedly a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) and the reviser of GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 73
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 77-78
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to clearly state how the differences between A and the editions came to exist. Chopin's proofreading cannot be excluded in this place, yet, according to us, an erroneous reproduction of A is much more likely – cf. an analogous phrase in bars 3-4, in which the repetition of f1 is confirmed with an accent and probably also with a corrected slur. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
|
b. 84
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The version of the editions is undoubtedly erroneous, which is proved by the Chopin correction in FED, restoring the text of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
||||||||
|
b. 85
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
A typical Chopin oversight – a missing category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , Cautionary accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions |
only in 
restoring e
2 – was not corrected in any of the editions. It is particularly bizarre in 
before e2 was removed, unnecessarily repeated on the 4th semiquaver in