|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The missing fingering digit in the editions is most probably a result of an oversight or misunderstanding concerning the essence of the dash over the grace note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Same as in bar 13, the change of rhythm is probably a result of a mistake or revision, this time of the engraver of FE (→EE). Same as in that case, a possibility of Chopin's proofreading cannot be, however, entirely excluded. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: FE revisions , Inserted rest |
|||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The change of small quavers to semiquavers is certainly arbitrary and it proves a routine approach of the engraver of GE (→FE→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur of A is written vehemently both on the right-hand side, where no ambiguities concerning its range arise, and on the left-hand side, where one could have doubts whether it should start from the 1st or 2nd quaver of the 2nd half of the bar. A comparison of slurs of A in similar situations clearly proves that at the time of writing A Chopin's intention was a slur from the 2nd quaver. This is how it was interpreted in GE2. The interpretation of GE1 (→FE→EE) may be considered justified, yet it is most probably erroneous. Cf. the possibly Chopin proofreading in analogous bar 81. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
