Issues : Authentic corrections of GE
|
b. 141-144
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In A, Chopin marked staccato only over the part of the R.H., which is undoubtedly valid for both hands in the context of this texture. In GE1 (→FE→EE), dots were printed only in bar 142, moved to the side of note heads (very frequent, routine intervention of engravers), and they were also added under the L.H. Oversight of the dots in bar 141 and 143-144 certainly stems from the engraver's carelessness, whereas addition of signs for the L.H. could have been ordered by Chopin. GE2 added the overlooked dots – in both hands – in bars 143-144. In the main text we present a similar solution, including signs on the last crotchet in bar 141. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 148-154
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It cannot be excluded that the slurs in the L.H. in bars 148 and 154 in GE1 were added by Chopin. However, according to us, a revision is more likely in this case (see bars 145-160), hence we do not include them in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 151
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The missing slur in the R.H. is almost certainly an inaccuracy of A: in the entire fragment, Chopin marked articulation of all remaining notes. In GE1 slurs in parts of both hands were added, which could have been performed upon initiative of Chopin. However, the proofreading was implemented inaccurately, since the range of the added slurs differs, which could not correspond to the composer's intention (the slurs were unified both in FE (→EE) and GE2, although in each differently). There is also a possibility that Chopin added only the slur in the R.H. and the second one is an addition of revision – cf. bars 148 and 154. Therefore, in the main text we give only the slur in the R.H. – see bars 145-160. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 167
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The cautionary naturals before g2 and g1 were added in GE (→FE→EE). It could have been performed at Chopin's request. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 169-170
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The absence of the slur over (under) the triplet in bar 170 is certainly Chopin's oversight, who overlooked the entire marking of the triplet – digit and slur. In the main text we add both. In GE1 (→FE) the two-note slur of A was replaced with a longer one, embracing the entire motif. It seems to be likely that it is Chopin's proofreading, although one can have doubts whether a possible entry of the composer in the proof copy was reproduced correctly: Chopin could have been thinking of a shorter slur, like in GE2. The version of EE is certainly arbitrary. We give a more detailed analysis of the slurs of both hands in these and analogous bars in bars 171-172. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE |
