Issues : Inaccuracies in GE
b. 88-89
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In GE1 (→FE→EE), although the slur that started over the last chord in bar 88 was not finished in bar 89 (on a new line), its intended reach is unquestionable and compliant with A. Omission of the slur in GE2, unless it is a simple oversight, must be considered an ineffective revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 89
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we give the slurs that Chopin wrote in A, yet the slur of GE (→FE→EE) can be considered an equal variant:
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 89
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The shorter hairpin in the editions is most probably a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1, who, wishing to avoid troubles with fitting in such a long sign, could have considered its earlier beginning to be superfluous in the face of the verbal crescendo indication. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||
b. 89-90
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The fact of breaking the slur in the editions is certainly an example of the manner of the engraver of GE1, who would avoid long slurs and adjust them to metric structures, in this case bars – see also bars 90-91. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||
b. 90-91
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
A shorter slur in GE (→FE→EE) – contrary to the unequivocal notation of A – is certainly a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |