b. 25
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The indication is written in A at the beginning of the bar. In GE1 it was placed between two chords, as a result of which FE (→EE) ascribed this indication to the 2nd beat of the bar. The authentic notation was restored in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (same as in our transcripts) bar 26 falls on a new line. The division of the sign was performed in such a way that in both bars a respectively shortened hairpin was printed (according to the then used earlier convention). EE overlooked the first sign. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Hairpins denoting continuation |
||||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
One can ponder whether Chopin did not try to change the notation of this ornament from small quavers to semiquavers: in bar 7 already in GE1 and here in FE (→EE). It cannot be excluded, yet taking into account the unobvious difference between two notations, we consider an inaccuracy of the engravers to be a more likely explanation of these changes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
An earlier beginning of the slur in the L.H. in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly a result of inaccuracy of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |