Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The two-quaver slur of A is most probably inaccurate (cf. similar figures in, e.g., the previous bars). Therefore, in the main text we give a longer slur, corresponding to the slurring of analogous figures. A similar solution was adopted in GE2. The half-bar slur of the remaining editions is certainly an arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur added in GE1 (→FE→EE), clearly incompatible with the accompaniment's texture, is certainly erroneous, which contributed to it having been omitted by the reviser of GE2, who, above all, would check compliance with A. As far as A is concerned, one of two slurs combining the grace note with the f note seems to be superfluous, however, Chopin could have wanted to show that the grace note concerns both voices on the 3rd beat of the bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 13
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Deletions made Chopin rewrite the part of the L.H. on an adjacent stave. In the new notation of the 1st half of the bar, the slur embraces only three quavers (starting from the second). Above the deleted original version there is, however, a slur embracing four quavers, so theoretically one can ponder which one (or maybe both?) is valid. The legible original notation shows that the changes concerned the bass note only, which was initially an A category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 13
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The change of rhythmic values in GE (→FE→EE) is probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of GE1, who could have simply committed a mistake or (being certain that in such figures the note after the rest is shortened) could have considered that it was Chopin that made a mistake. A possible proofreading by Chopin seems to be highly unlikely due to the total absence of changes in print. Chopin would use both types of notation in similar situations; sometimes he would hesitate or change his decisions (see the Scherzo in C category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inserted rest |
|||||||||||
|
b. 14-15
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur of A undoubtedly begins from the 2nd quaver of the bar, hence the fact that it starts earlier in GE1 (→FE) is most probably a mistake. On the other hand, it is uncertain which note the slur of A is supposed to reach. A comparison with two analogous situations (bars 33 and 82) as well as separation of bass notes through articulation performed by Chopin in the entire movement tip the scales in favour of the slur ending together with the last chord in the bar. The interpretation adopted in the main text is present also in GE2. In GE1 the slur in bar 14 ends in a similar manner, yet in bar 15 one can see traces of deletion of the slur reaching the 1st quaver. It explains leading the slur from bars 14 until the beginning of bar 15 in FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
, which explains the fact of embracing the entire figure with one slur. After moving the bass one octave lower, one can take for granted that Chopin left the longer slur by inadvertence only. This is how it was interpreted in 
minor, Op. 39, 
