Issues : Placement of markings
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections |
|||||||||
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. 220
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In A, the slur over the F-f octave has undoubtedly a motivic meaning, same as the slur in the previous bar. With the change of direction of the stems, in GE the slur was moved under the notes and placed in such a way that it became a tie sustaining the bottom note of the octaves, F. The erroneous version was corrected in FE (→EE) – probably by Chopin – to another version, which, being the latest, we adopt to the main text. One can ponder whether Chopin would change it if GE1 would not have distorted the notation of A (apart from the change of the nature of the slur, the sign was overlooked). Anyway, the version of A, certainly authentic, can be taken into consideration when performing the Concerto. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Placement of markings , Authentic corrections of FE |