mUltimate Chopin

Issues : Annotations in FES

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
…
17
Next »

b. 44

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

In FE, there is no accidental before the topmost note of the 2nd chord. This patent mistake – see the chord in the L.H. on the 4th quaver – was corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp was added also in FES.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 45

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

In FE, the triplets on the 6th and 7th quavers in the bar open with a d²-c³seventh. Chopin corrected those patent mistakes in FED; GE and EE also include the correct version. Entries in pencil are present also in FES and FEJ; however, their meaning is not entirely clear. In FES, something resembling note heads was added in pencil around the erroneous notes, yet they rather look like a deletion of c²than an addition of a b². In spite of this, since it is difficult to imagine a different aim of additions in this place, we assume that the intention of the person who wrote them, probably Chopin, was to correct the wrong notes. The entry in pencil in FEJ is even less obvious; it looks nothing like the Chopinesque entries – both erroneous notes were put in circles and a quite illegible sign was placed above each of them, perhaps a letter (b?). Therefore, it could mean that the entry was performed by an English-speaking person, hence, e.g. Miss Stirling, who undoubtedly copied the Chopinesque entries from her copies to the copies of Chopin's sister in other pieces.