Issues : Inaccuracies in GE
|
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
No d category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Cautionary accidentals |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the entire fragment of the recitative nature, Chopin generally writes articulation markings separately for each hand. The missing staccato dots in the L.H. at the end of the bar is one of the exceptions, probably resulting from inaccuracy. In the editions the dots were overlooked in the R.H. too, which could have been a consequence of Chopin's proofreading. Taking into account a possibility of the engraver's mistake, in the main text we adhere to the version of A, adding dots also in the L.H. If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of two first source versions is to be selected here. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 47-48
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The interpretation of the slurring of A presents difficulties. The most important issue is the fact whether Chopin wanted to preserve double slurs or whether one of the versions (probably the long slur above the entire phrase) was supposed to replace the second one. The latter seems to be indicated by the absence of ending in bar 48 of two out of four slurs written at the end of bar 47 (corrections without erasing the eliminated version do happen in manuscripts, including in autographs, e.g. in the Etude in G In all editions, the crotchets in bar 48 are embraced with separate slurs, which rather does not correspond to the notation of A (the engraver may have been influenced by adjacent bars). However, when considering the portato articulation and the accent, the difference is of no practical meaning. In the main text, we give an interpretation closest to the notation of A, with double slurs. The version of FE (→EE) may be considered a fully-fledged alternative interpretation. If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the versions for the R.H. is to be selected. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 48
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The unquestionable long accent written in A was reproduced in GE as short and in FE (→EE1) it was overlooked. There seems to be no reason to attribute any of these changes to Chopin's intervention. In subsequent EE the accent was most probably added after GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies 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 |
1-g1 with 
in 
