Issues : FE revisions
b. 1-22
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In GE the entire first Tutti is written in a font of a normal size, clearly against the notation of A and generally applied rules of publication of solo versions of works with orchestra. Therefore, we consider it a patent mistake, which we reproduce only in the version "transcription." One can wonder why nobody paid attention to it when preparing GE2, generally carefully revised on the basis of A. FE (→EE) did not repeat this error, which seems to be an editorial decision, perhaps consulted with Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
A (→GE1) includes a repeated before the top note of the octave. The superfluous sign was removed in FE (→EE) and GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 23-49
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In GE the entire first Tutti was printed – certainly erroneously – in a font of a normal size. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 25-29
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A, the repeated octaves in the L.H. in bars 25-26, the group of four f1-b1 fourths in the R.H. in bar 26 and the groups of four identical chords in the L.H. in bars 27-29 are written in an abbreviated manner as quaver tremolos. In GE1 such a notation was preserved only in bars 25 and 29 and in FE only in bar 25. In EE and GE2, same as in the main text, all abbreviations were explained. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Abbreviated notation of A , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The range of the slur of A seems to be clear, in spite of this, it was not reproduced in this form in any of the editions. While an earlier beginning of the slur may be considered to be justified by a comparison with analogous bar 27, an earlier ending does not find any explanation in the notation of A and it is an example of a tendentious interpretation of slurs by the engraver of GE1, in addition, performed inaccurately, which was corrected in FE (→EE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions |