Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Omission of the accent in the editions can be considered justified if we take into consideration that, theoretically, it applies to the note that is not played at all, since it is sustained with a tie. From the practical point of view, the trill makes it possible for it to be accented, hence in the main text we suggest the sign in a variant form. It may also be that the missing accent is a result of the engraver's oversight or possibly of an editorial revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
It is hard to assume whether the missing accent in FE (→EE) is one of the results of the Chopin proofreading on the 3rd beat of the bar, or whether it is only its unintended side effect or simply an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The missing dot over the last note in the bar in A seems to be an inaccuracy – perhaps ink did not come at the last sign. The dot was added already in GE1, which – although Chopin's proofreading cannot be excluded – was probably a routine action of the engraver (cf. bar 76). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The overlooked staccato dot in the majority of the editions is most probably a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1. The sign in GE2 was added after A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 84
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
in 
