Issues : FE revisions
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Same as in bar 13, the change of rhythm is probably a result of a mistake or revision, this time of the engraver of FE (→EE). Same as in that case, a possibility of Chopin's proofreading cannot be, however, entirely excluded. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: FE revisions , Inserted rest |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. 54-55
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
On the last beat of bar 54, the slurs in A embrace the first 7 demisemiquavers only. The editions embraced 8 notes with them (in GE1 in the L.H. the slur erroneously embraces the entire figure and in FE the slur in bar 55 was shortened accordingly). In this case, the inaccuracy is understandable, particularly with regard to the slur of the R.H. that ends between g If in bar 53 the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the versions with slurs only in the R.H. is to be selected here. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur embracing in A bars 83-84 (with upbeat) was inaccurately reproduced in GE1 due to the transition into a new line. Both in FE (→EE) and GE2 the inaccuracy was removed, by adjusting the correct 1st part of the slur (in bars 82-83) to the erroneous slur in bar 84. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions |
major, Op. 10 No. 5, 
