Verbal indications
|
b. 199
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The Chopin category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , fz – f |
||||||
|
b. 213
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
||||||
|
b. 213
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The Viol. indication, added in GE1, may be authentic. Chopin could have had two reasons to specify the instrumentation: the reduction does not include here an important motif of the flute and oboe; moreover, in GE1 the dots and the slur written in A were overlooked. The possibility that the articulation markings were deliberately replaced with this indication seems to be much less likely. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||
|
b. 218
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
We give the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||
|
b. 218
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Chopin added the sempre legato indication in the proofreading of FE1 (→FE2→EE). It certainly concerns the L.H., which is devoid of slurs from that place on. While writing A, Chopin would perhaps think that the slur in bar 217 would be enough (as an example to follow in subsequent figures); however, upon seeing this place during the proofreading of FE1, he considered a clearer indication of the performance manner to be necessary – this is most probably the so-called harmonic legato, i.e. holding elements of a chord with fingers, which is partially written with rhythmic values. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
in 
& 
minor, Op. 10 No. 6, 
in 
