|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
It is hard to decide whether the missing tie of c2 in GE1 (→FE→EE) is a result of the removal of the tie by Chopin or of the engraver's inaccuracy. The latter seems to be more likely, since there are no traces of deleting the tie; moreover, in the version of A the 1st half of the bar clearly differs from bar 32 (such differences are characteristic for Chopin). On the other hand, while proofreading the 2nd half of the bar in FE, Chopin did not restore the version with the tie, which can be considered a proof of acceptance of repeating the discussed note. In this situation, in the main text we suggest a variant solution. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur in the L.H. was added in GE (→FE→EE), probably by Chopin – traces of corrections in print prove that he extended here the slur in the R.H., originally starting in GE1 only from demisemiquavers. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1 |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The roulade ending this bar has two basic versions in the sources:
The second was undoubtedly introduced on Chopin's request, however, its notation raises certain doubts – the g2 note added in the proofreading is preceded with a Differences in the notation of the rhythm of the figure's ending – see the last note in this bar – cause that two slightly differing rhythmic schemes can be ascribed to each of the versions of the roulade discussed above. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Terzverschreibung error , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the editions the last note is written as a hemidemisemiquaver. Therefore, the group filling the 4th beat of the bar contains a fractional number of demisemiquavers – 8½ in GE1 and 9½ in FE (→EE), which must be regarded as a mistake. The engraver of GE1 probably shortened the last note, kind of "automatically" – cf. bar 41. The mistake was revised only in GE2, by reducing the value of the rest, which does not correspond to Chopin's original intention expressed in A. However, it could be that an additional beam was added in GE1 (→FE→EE) upon inspiration from Chopin, whereas leaving the rest without any changes was merely an oversight. In that situation, the version of GE2 would be a rational correction of an inaccurately performed proofreading of GE1. Such a possibility would be indicated by the overlooked '9' digit, determining the number of demisemiquavers in the group. The above analysis of the rhythm of the roulade's ending is binding regardless of the versions of its earlier part – see the previous note in this bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
2;
(cautionary?), being totally unjustified in this context (e.g. both in analogous bars 13 and 32 and in the discussed bar the top most note of this figure, g3, is written without a