|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The version of the editions is almost certainly erroneous – perhaps the engraver of GE mistook the hastily written minim rests of the solo part for dots extending the crotchets. FE overlooked the minim rest of the R.H. If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was selected, the first version is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slurs on the 3rd beat of the bar perform a double function in A: concerning rhythm, as a part of indication of an irregular group, and articulation. In the editions only the group of semiquavers (without rest) were embraced with them. In the main text, we preserve the notation of A, yet both versions can be considered equal – at first, Chopin would mark irregular groups generally with a digit and a slur, however, then he would often revise slurs, transforming them into a slur-phrase marks. If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the versions for the R.H. is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Triplet slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 52
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur written in A embraces only this bar, yet the slur in the next bar (on a new page of the manuscript) clearly indicates continuation. In the main text we assume that it is the second slur that determines Chopin's intention in this place. The slur of GE1 (→FE) is clearly erroneous, which was revised in EE and GE2. In that editions, a slur in the part of the L.H. was also added, which can be considered to be justified with regard to the consistent slurring of the parts of both hands in the remaining sections of this fragment (bars 44-45). If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the first three source versions is to be selected here. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 52
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we give articulation signs written by Chopin in the part of the R.H. in A. Taking into account the notation of the entire first section of the recitative (bars 45-57), we suggest adding these indications also in the L.H. (a similar revision was performed in EE3). GE homogenised the staccato signs, replacing wedges with dots, and added a superfluous accent on the last note. In FE (→EE) the inaccuracies aggravated – staccato signs of e If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the versions with signs in the R.H. is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
2 and d