|
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Contrary to the notation of A, accents in GE1 are of a varied length. The signs in FE are not equivalent, yet the difference seems to be unimportant; we interpret them as short (short accents are also in GE2). All those differences are undoubtedly of an accidental character. In EE both signs were reproduced as vertical accents and such an accent was added over the chord on the 4th beat of the bar. Cf. notes on accents in the R.H. in this and next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In EE the accent was changed to a vertical one, same as all other accents in this and next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The fingering digits written in A were overlooked in GE (→FE→EE). Chopin confirmed this fingering with an entry in FED. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
It is difficult to say what the motivation of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) was while he overlooked four very distinct long accents of A. He may have considered them to be superfluous in the face of the accents of the R.H. In GE2 the accents were reproduced as short. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The change of subtle motivic slurs, written in A on the 1st and 3rd beats of the bar, to the slurs embracing the entire sextuplets is certainly an arbitrary simplification of GE (→FE→EE). Cf. bar 24. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
