Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
A shorter slur of GE1 is (together with the previous one) a clear example of carelessness presented by the engraver of GE1 at the time of handling the slurring written in A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 7-17
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In A the presence of staccato dots over the bass notes in all figures of this type, both whole-bar (bars 7-8) and half-bar (bars 9-13, 15 and 17) is beyond any doubts, although one is missing (the second in bar 9, over B category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the part of the R.H. it is only GE2 that does not contain a rhythmic error. The version, however, resulted from a revision and it certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention. For the remaining sources (except for EE3), we adopt an interpretation compatible with the way the R.H. is planned with respect to the quavers in the L.H. As the text of EE3 we adopt the rhythm that, according to us, predominates at the time of interpreting the easiest perceptible elements of the rhythm: a crotchet, an extended crotchet and a group of semiquavers with a triplet inside. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A |
|||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Numerous corrections on the 3rd beat of the bar (erasures and deletions) forced Chopin to write a group of three semiquavers on an adjacent stave. The group is embraced with a slur, which almost certainly means that it is a triplet. On the main stave, however, there is another slur in this place, starting from the previous semiquaver. The slur was most probably written earlier and concerned one of the deleted versions of this place. In this situation it is uncertain whether the new slur (over the triplet) was, according to Chopin, supposed to complement the previous (as a slur separating an irregular group) or whether Chopin inadvertently left a longer slur and the slur over the triplet was supposed to replace it. According to us, the latter is the most likely (cf. bar 13), hence we give this version in the main text. An alternative interpretation assumes a later addition of the longer slur as the final one. This is generally the way it was understood in GE (→FE→EE1→EE2), although due to a different interpretation of the rhythm, the slur embraces there the entire 3rd beat of the bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
An additional c1 note on the 5th quaver is certainly a mistake. The correct text in subsequent EE is a result of a comparison with analogous bars 27 and 76 or GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE |
) and two other are placed over the notes that were deleted in the original version (the first in bars 10 and 15). In 
