Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 80-82
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The earlier started slur in FE (→EE) is an inauspicious interpretation of the carelessly written slur of GE1. In addition, the endings of the slurs at the transition between bars 81 and 82 are incompatible in GE1 and FE. We interpret these inaccuracies in favour of a continuous slur due to proximity of a correct slur in bars 83-84. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 81-82
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
GE1 (→FE→EE) did not understand any of the two ones written in A, denoting the use of the 1st finger. The first was overlooked, whereas the second was reproduced as a staccato dot. In GE2, only the second of these places was corrected. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The form of this adverb used by Chopin had already been archaic in his time. Therefore, in the main text we accept the correction introduced in GE1. The form used in FE is erroneous, whereas in EE the adverb was replaced with an adjective. Curiously, GE2 reinstated the incorrect A form. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , FE revisions |
