Issues : Authentic corrections of FE
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In A (→GE1) there are no digits specifying the number of notes in the irregular group consisting of 8 notes; however, they were added – probably by Chopin – in the proofreading of FE (→EE). In GE2, the entire group was marked with number 11, which, although theoretically possible, seems to be highly unlikely to be intended by Chopin – such a rhythm, quite unnatural and difficult to imagine in a strict way, practically differs very little from the version of FE (the differences in the length of the corresponding notes in both divisions do not exceed 10%). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 63
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The group of notes on the 1st beat of the bar was not provided with a digit specifying the number of notes by Chopin. It was added only in GE2, by inserting a '6'. In the main text we recommend a '3', suggesting grouping semiquavers in twos in a clearer manner. If Chopin had heard semiquavers grouped in threes, he could have written the 1st note as a quaver without a dot. However, the discussed situation is far from being unambiguous, particularly given that in the proofreading of FE (→EE) the dot extending the quaver was removed (in the parts of both hands), which could have been performed by Chopin. Taking into consideration the fact that possible differences in performance are practically minimal, we regard each of the versions as acceptable. If in bar 53 the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen, the second or third version is to be selected here. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 64-69
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the final section of the recitative, embracing these bars, Chopin omitted the majority of indications of the irregular groups in A (→GE1) – he only wrote a '7' over the part of the R.H. in bars 65 and 66. In the remaining editions, additions in this respect were performed, and we consider the digits added in FE (→EE) in bar 64 ('12') and 69 ('21') to be authentic. GE2 added all formally necessary markings. We introduce additions also in the main text, apart from brackets in obvious situations (graphically separated triplets and markings omitted in the L.H. only). The only less obvious situation – in bar 64 – is discussed separately. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slurring of the first three beats of the bar constitutes a difficult editorial problem. The absence of signs in A must be considered an inaccuracy – it is the only recitative's fragment that is devoid of slurs. The addition of slurs in GE1 was most probably inspired by Chopin, yet due to the differences between the hands it is hard to assume that they exactly correspond to his intention (a rational attempt at interpreting the intention may be the slurs of GE2). The overlooked slur in the R.H. in FE may also indicate Chopin's proofreading – perhaps its aim was to achieve such slurs as in EE. If in bar 64 the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen, the version without slurs or one of the versions with slurs in the R.H. only is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 65
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The missing flats returning d If in bar 64 the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen, the first or third version is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
(1) in 