Pitch
|
b. 48
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
A has an a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 53-54
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is not entirely certain what kind of accents Chopin had in mind after category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
A has an additional note, E category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 55
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The chord in the R.H. on the 2nd beat of the bar was crossed out in A and rewritten to the left of the original position. It is possible to read the initial notation – it was a chord written in two parts with a c2-f2-a category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A , Deletions in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 57
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The notation of the last chord in the R.H. in A is surprising – over three g1-e2-g2 notes there is also a fourth one, more or less at the pitch of c3 or d3, but devoid of ledger lines, so it is unknown what note it should represent. At the same time, it is not one of the blots copied from the adjacent page, of which there are several in the next bars. According to us, it is a mistakenly boldened random ink spill or a staccato dot. The latter seems to be supported by the presence of such a dot in GE1; however, the dot in GE1 may be explained by another kind of mistake – see the adjacent note. category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
1 as the lowest note in the 3rd chord. Chopin's mistake is proved by g1 in the clarinet part in 
marks. The accents are longer than those in bars 57-58, yet it does not seem that it would be a significant difference. In turn, they are clearly different than the typical long accent in bar 55. Since the accents in analogous bars 57-58, 397-398 and 401-402 are clearly short, in the main text we adopt short accents. Subsequent omissions of accents in 