Issues : Inaccuracies in GE
|
b. 86-87
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In GE1, bar 86 is the last one on the page, whereas the slurs in this and the next bar do not fit together – the slur in bar 86 (proofread) clearly suggest continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur beginning in bar 87. In the remaining editions, the doubt was resolved in favour of separated slurs, although the ending of the slur in FE in bar 86 is not completely unambiguous. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 91-92
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In bar 91, the last one in the line of the text, the slur in GE1 suggests continuation, yet it can be considered to be inaccurately drawn, particularly since the slur in bar 92 starts from the 1st note. As a result, FE (→EE) has a clearly separate slur in each of these bars. GE2 reproduced the two-bar slur of A accurately. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The ending of the slur in GE1 was printed inaccurately – the slur at the end of the line suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in the next bar. In this case, this very frequent inaccuracy did not provoke mistakes in the remaining editions. In the initial part of the slur (in bar 93), one can see clear traces of proofreading of the slurs in GE1 – initially, one slur embraced bars 92-93. In GE1a, one can see that the slurs in the further part were originally different – one slur reached the end of bar 95, whereas the other ran above bar 96. Therefore, the inaccurate ending of the corrected slur described above is a result of an inaccurately implemented proofreading. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1 |
|||||||||||
|
b. 98-103
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text we give accents in the L.H. in bars 98-99 and 102-103 after A and GE2, modelled after it. All differences between the remaining editions can be attributed to mistakes (oversight of signs in bars 98 and 103 in FE and EE, based on it) or inaccuracies (changes of the length of the accents). As a consequence, one can consider only the accent in bar 98 in GE1 and both accents in FE (bars 99 and 102) to be compliant with Chopin's notation; the accents, although unobvious at the first sight, as far as the type of the employed accent is concerned, are clearly longer than the short accents in bar 118, present on the same page. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
|
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slurs of GE1, contrary to A and to a natural division into motifs, emphasised with a transfer of the hand, were partially corrected in FE (→EE). According to us, it is uncertain whether it was a result of Chopin's intervention or inaccuracy of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources |
