Issues : Authentic corrections of GE
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In a proofreading of GE (→FE→EE) Chopin removed the second out of four small semiquavers written in A, most probably, however, it was an erroneously engraved a1. In spite of the fact that Chopin's intention of removing the correct note (f1) was not explicitly expressed in this situation, a reduced number of notes in this ornament remains a fact. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the version of the editions. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||||||
b. 29-31
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slurs in A begin from the 2nd quaver of each half-bar figure (only the slur in bar 31 may raise doubts). It is unclear how the change of their range occurred in GE1 (→FE→EE): in the case of a few of them one may assume extension of slurs in print (adding slurs in the 2nd half of bar 31 was a patent intervention). Not being certain whether the changes were performed in consultation with Chopin, in the main text we preserve the slurring of A (restored in GE2). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE) could have been added by Chopin. However, taking into account the fact that some of additions of slurs in GE1 are questionable, as far as Chopin's participation in their addition is concerned, in the main text we consistently leave the version of A (cf. bars 29-31). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||||||
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The changes in the pitch of the 2nd note in particular sources seem to prove Chopin's hesitation; the order of the versions is as follows: b1 in A, b1 in GE1, b1 returned in a proofreading of FE (→EE), most probably by Chopin, and b1 written in FED (the version of GE2 is most probably a result of a revision on the basis of A). Chopin's hesitation seems to touch the basic structure of the phrase here: melodically, the beginning of the bar is related to the previous figure, containing a b1, harmonically, it inclines towards the next chord (on the 4th crotchet of bar 41), containing a b1. A melodic solution equal to the version with b1 was used by Chopin against a similar chord in the Mazurka in A minor, Dbop. 42B, bar 52. However, one has to point out that although the authenticity of the version with b1 is unquestionable (A and a proofreading of FE), the first appearance of the version with b1 could be ascribed to a mistake (revision?) of GE while the interpretation of an entry in FED as an added is not entirely certain. Due to this reason, in the main text we give b1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Chopin's hesitations , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||||||
b. 42-44
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slurring of the R.H. in A is inaccurate and unclear:
The slurs of A in bar 42 were overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE); however, in EE parallel slurs on the last beat of the bar were added (it is most probably an editorial revision). In turn, the slur over the demisemiquavers in bar 43 could have been added in GE by Chopin; its beginning is certainly inaccurate, which was corrected in FE (→EE) and GE2. We include the slur, in the version of FE, in the main text, being, apart from that, an interpretation of the slurs of A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Corrections in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , FE revisions |