Issues : Partial corrections
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
An additional c2 note could have been added by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE). The melodic line of the accompaniment, where the second quaver of each pair is higher than the previous dyad or chord, suggests that the note was probably to be sustained, which was then performed in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It cannot be excluded that the additional c2 was printed in GE1 by mistake and left unnecessarily after having added the correct note, a1 (a Terzverschreibung error). The tie of this note, added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) and eliminating its repetition, would be then a "simplified correction," which would happen in Chopin's works, e.g. in the Polonaise in C minor, Op. 40 No. 2, bar 125. GE2 restored the version of A. In the main text we give the version of FE as intended or accepted by Chopin. The version of A may be considered an equal variant, whereas the version of GE1 is almost certainly erroneous. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections |
|||||||||||
b. 174
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The first of two in GE1 (→FE→EE) could have been added by Chopin, yet, according to us, a mistake of the engraver is more likely; after the erroneously printed sign at the beginning of the bar, he could have added another one under the chord (having noticed a mistake or performing proofreading), yet he did not delete the first sign. This type of unfinished proofreading, where the erroneously printed element remains in the notation in spite of adding the correct sign, would occur in Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions, e.g. in the Polonais in B major, WN 17, bar 65. In similar motifs, composed of the bass and a longer resounding chord of a syncopated nature, the accent appears much more often on the chord only than on both elements, cf. e.g. the Rondo in E major, Op. 16, bar 37 or Bolero, Op. 19, bar 134, as well as three last examples mentioned in the adjacent note. Therefore, we consider the version of the editions a variant of dubious authenticity and we give A as the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Partial corrections |
|||||||||||
b. 185
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we give the notation of A, the only authentic according to us. The versions of editions are a sequence of cumulative mistakes, inaccuracies, misinterpretations and arbitrary changes:
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Partial corrections |
|||||||||||
b. 346
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In GE1 the semiquaver opening the characteristic main motif of this movement of the Concerto, recalled here, is A-f. This patent mistake, corrected both in FE (→EE) and in GE2, is probably a result of an unfinished proofreading of A, erroneously printed in this place – the correct note was added, yet the erroneous one was not removed. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Partial corrections |