Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 110
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing wedge in GE may be a mere oversight; however, taking into account possible corrections of FE in the R.H., we assume that it is more likely that the wedge was added by Chopin in the last phase of proofreading of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
|
b. 110
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The two missing staccato dots in the R.H. at the beginning of the 2nd beat of the bar in GE is a mistake repeated most probably after the proof copy of FE. It is indicated by numerous traces of proofreading of slurring in FE – at the time of removing the original slur, which reached to the end of the 3rd semiquaver triplet only, the discussed dots were probably also removed (they are the closest to the original slur), which got to GE, while in FE it was completed in the last phase of proofreading. Cf. the note at the beginning of this bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
|
b. 111
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Differentiation between the staccato marks in FE (→EE) – a wedge in bar 111 and a dot in bar 113 – could have been intended by Chopin, although being deprived of access to [A], one cannot exclude a mistake in the manuscript's reproduction. Unification of the markings in GE is almost certainly an arbitrary revision; according to us, a possible use of wedges in both bars is much more likely, since young Chopin considered them the basic marking of staccato. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Wedges |
