b. 20
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
It is difficult to find an objective behind combining the slurs above the rest, hence the slur of GE1 (→FE→EE) is most probably a mistake of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The version of GE1 is certainly erroneous: it is most probably a revised Terzverschreibung error, by adding a . Chopin restored the chord with c2, written in A, in a proofreading of FE (→EE). At the time of executing this proofreading, a superfluous was moved together with the note head. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The upper arm of the sign in A is clearly longer than the lower. In the main text we adopt the most likely, according to us, interpretation in which the sign reaches the accented chord on the 4th beat of the bar. In GE (→FE→EE) the influence of is limited to the 1st half of the bar. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
According to us, the fact of removing the accents by Chopin in a proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE) is less likely than them having been accidentally overlooked by the engraver (there are more similar inaccuracies, both in this and the previous bar). GE2 restored the accents (as short). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The indication, added most probably by Chopin in FED, may be considered a more precise version of the notation or a change of the dynamic concept (see the previous note in this bar). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |