|
b. 385-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of the L.H., being a repetition of a respective slur in the R.H., is certainly an addition of the revision of EE and GE2. In the case of GE2, in which the slur in the R.H. has the same range as in A, the compliance of this addition with Chopin's intention is not entirely excluded – see bars 376-377. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 386-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Shortened slurs are a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE), corrected on the basis of A in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The omission of the wedge must be an oversight of GE1 (→FE→EE). The staccato sign – in the form of a dot – was added in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||||
|
b. 387-388
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The articulation markings – slurs and dots – added in EE and GE2 are inauthentic. Each of these editions repeated the markings used in the R.H. in the part of the L.H. (in EE it was performed inaccurately, since the dots in bar 387 were overlooked). In the case of GE2, compliance of this addition with Chopin's intention cannot be entirely excluded – see bars 376-377. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 387-388
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is difficult to say whether the division of the slur in FE (→EE) is a consequence of a mistake of the engraver of FE or whether the slurs were corrected in GE1 in the last phase of proofreading, already after having sent the copies to Paris. In the main text we give the only authentic version of A (→GE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
