Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 82
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The accent in A is not unequivocal as such, hence its interpretation in GE (→FE→EE) as a short accent for the R.H. is not conspicuous. However, a comparison with the notation of analogous bars resolves the doubt in the favour of a long accent over the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
A Chopin long accent in this bar is the longest out of the similar signs in the entire section encompassing bars 81-124. In spite of this, compared to subsequent, unequivocal accents in similar phrases, its accenting character is beyond doubt. Placing it at the end of the previous bar is undoubtedly a mistake of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE). In GE2, the sign was moved to the correct place, yet its exceptional length, interpreted literally, was preserved. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
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. 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. 101
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is uncertain which articulation for the 2nd crotchet in the bar Chopin envisioned. A small spot over the note could be a staccato dot, and it was reproduced as such in GE2. In this case, the inaccurate beginning of the slur of A should be interpreted as written with flourish, yet concerning only the 3rd crotchet. According to us, it is still possible that the spot constitutes the beginning of the slur, separated from the following part due to ink stoppage. A abounds in defects of this kind, although they generally do not hamper the interpretation of the composer's intention – cf. e.g. 1st mov., bar 216 or 309, 2nd mov., bar 16. (The mentioned spot can be simply a spot and not be related to the notation of the Concerto at all). In the main text we give a slur from the 2nd crotchet due to: category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
in bar 83 in 
