Issues : Inaccuracies in A
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In A there is no before the top note of the octave. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE (→FE→EE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 10
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In A (→GE1→FE) there is no lowering f to f. Chopin's patent oversight was corrected in EE and GE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
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, 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 GE2, yet in GE1 (→FE→EE) a half-bar slur was adopted. 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
..
In view of the deletions in A one can understand that the engraver of GE (→FE→EE) omitted the sign written there. However, the deletions clearly concern the L.H. part only, and not the hairpin, hence we include it in the main text. The range of the sign is also questionable, since the upper arm is clearly shorter than the lower one. It is a frequent situation in Chopin's autographs, however, generally it is the context or similar places that allow us to guess the composer's intention. In this case, leading crescendo makes sense both to the top most note of the passage and to the minim in the next bar: it is confirmed by the notation of analogous bars 32 and 81, in which the hairpin reaches the top most note in one case and the end of the bar in the other one. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The upper arm of the sign in A is clearly longer than the lower. In the main text we adopt the most likely, according to us, interpretation in which the sign reaches the accented chord on the 4th beat of the bar. In GE (→FE→EE) the influence of is limited to the 1st half of the bar. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in A |