Issues : GE revisions
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Upon seeing the slur of A led over the part of the L.H., impossible to reproduce in print in this form, the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) divided it into three parts to make it easier. According to us, the bottom slur is an addition by Chopin, who added a slur confirming the will expressed in A to embrace the part of the L.H. with one slur. In this context, it does not seem that Chopin would care about double slurs – the divided top slurs were most probably left in order to avoid an excessively complicated proofreading; it could have been a decision of the engraver or of Chopin. The added slur, although it is generally compliant with the slur of A, is, however, longer. Both versions make sense since the slur of A, led over the part of the L.H., reaches a, which is then repeated, while the slur of GE, running from the bottom voice, embraces the entire bass line, in accordance with the phrasing of the R.H. In this situation, in the main text we reproduce the slur of A and we suggest the slur added in the proofreading of GE1 as an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give separated slurs of FE (→EE), corrected most probably by Chopin. GE2 also has similar slurs, probably as a result of a too literal interpretation of A, in which the added ending of the slur does not touch the preceding part. In EE and GE2 the slur in bar 4 was placed under the chords: in EE apart from the slur over the chords, in GE2 – as the only one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A it is unclear what type of accents Chopin meant on the 4th beat of these bars. According to us, the use of long accents is more likely, which is indicated by both the shape of the sign in bar 4 and the placement of the sign in bar 5: this kind of short, yet shifted signs are sometimes to be found in Chopin's autographs, cf. e.g. Ap in the Etude in A minor, Op. 10 No. 2, bar 22, 27-29, 32, 45-46. In the editions the accents were reproduced as short; moreover, they were moved between the parts of both hands – the latter could have been indicated by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 4-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The addition of slurs in the part of the L.H. may be considered a result of Chopin's proofreading. In the main text we preserve the equivalent notation of A, certainly authentic and more economical. Cf. the note to the 2nd mov., bars 57-61. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Omission of both staccato signs is certainly a result of distraction of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). The omission of the wedge also changed the meaning of the curvy line combining both c – the motivic slur transformed into a tie. It was observed only in GE2, yet, despite additions, the version of this edition only partially corresponds to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |