Ornaments
|
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The change of the beam of the group of grace notes is probably an arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE): cf. analogous bar 26 and bar 75. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
A vertical slur written in A before the c2-c3 octave designates an arpeggio: it is just a simplified form of the standard wavy line, cf. e.g. the last chord in the 3rd movement, bar 484. In that period of Chopin's life the simplification process had just begun, hence a misunderstanding of this notation on the part of engravers is understandable. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||
|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The editions do not include a wavy line after the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||
|
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
One can ponder whether Chopin did not try to change the notation of this ornament from small quavers to semiquavers: in bar 7 already in GE1 and here in FE (→EE). It cannot be excluded, yet taking into account the unobvious difference between two notations, we consider an inaccuracy of the engravers to be a more likely explanation of these changes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The change of small quavers to semiquavers is certainly arbitrary and it proves a routine approach of the engraver of GE (→FE→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
sign, which most probably resulted from lack of space for this sign in 
