Issues : GE revisions
|
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 |
||||||||
|
b. 82
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
It is uncertain whether the tie of the minim in GE1 (→FE→EE) was overlooked or removed by Chopin. According to us, the first possibility is more likely; however, in the main text we suggest a variant solution. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
|
b. 82
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Out of two slurs written in A, in GE (→FE→EE) the bottom was chosen, embracing only the group of small quavers. The choice, compliant with the general approach of the engraver of GE1, is, however, unfortunate, since the bottom slur is only a part of the marking of an irregular group in this context. In the main text we leave the top slur, performing an articulation and phrasing function – Cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 16. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Triplet slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Both the sixth present in A and the c2-c3 octave in GE1 (→FE) are almost certainly mistakes – cf. analogous bar 15. In A Chopin wrote one ledger line too little (errors in the number of ledger lines are – except for accidentals – definitely the most frequent type of his pitch errors), whereas the change in GE1 may be explained by an editorial revision, a misunderstanding at the time of proofreading or a common mistake. Chopin wrote the correct text in all three pupils' copies. The version of EE and GE2 are most probably revisions, introduced on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 15. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ |
||||||||
|
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur embracing in A bars 83-84 (with upbeat) was inaccurately reproduced in GE1 due to the transition into a new line. Both in FE (→EE) and GE2 the inaccuracy was removed, by adjusting the correct 1st part of the slur (in bars 82-83) to the erroneous slur in bar 84. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions |
2 tied in 
