Issues : EE inaccuracies
|
b. 220
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In EE the accent was reproduced as a short one. See the previous note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 223
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Same as in the previous bar, A has a long accent on d category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 224
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The given version of A is already a result of Chopin's corrections, who changed the rhythm and articulation in the 1st half of the bar. Therefore, there is no doubt that the reduction of the number of accents in GE1 (→FE→EE) also came from him. In the main text we give the latest version, changing only the accent, to a long one, much more likely in this context and generally erroneously reproduced in the editions (further changes to the type of accents in FE and EE are probably arbitrary too). GE2 restored the accents removed by Chopin, which points to the use of an autograph at the time of revising GE2 and not the test copy of GE1 with Chopin's proofreading. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 249
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The erroneous pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in GE is a consequence of the imprecise notation of the end of the octave sign embracing the first two semiquavers in this bar in A (and the last four of the previous one). In GE1 the notation was reproduced too literally (erroneously), not taking into account both the graphical context and analogous figures in the next bars. The mistake was not repeated in FE (→EE), although the notation of EE is not entirely clear. In turn, the misunderstanding of Chopin's intention in GE2 is puzzling, in which the erroneous pitch of the discussed note was repeated, although the notation does not include an octave sign. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 252
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, all versions of the editions are a result of consecutively overlapping inaccuracies and misunderstandings. In GE the signs were related only to the notes on the bottom stave, which was then inaccurately reproduced in FE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
4 and a short one on c2. The difference was not included in 
