Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 83-90
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The half-bar slurs in the editions – the first in bar 83 and both in bars 85 and 90 – are almost certainly a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1, who apparently did not take the Chopin slurs too seriously, perhaps considering them to be written carelessly. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 85-86
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Two slurs of A, defining the phrasing of these two bars, were replaced in GE1 (→FE→EE) with three slurs dividing the phrase into half- and whole-bar sections, which was only partially corrected in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 85
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Both authentic notations of the ornament – A and FE (→EE) – mean the same performance. The mistake of GE1 originated from an unrecognised arpeggio sign in the vertical slur, which, at that period of Chopin's life, would increasingly replace the more accurately written signs in the form of a wavy line. The way the slur was added in GE2 caused that the proper sense of the Chopin notation was still not conveyed in this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 86
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 87
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The missing e category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
2 in chord in 