Issues : Omitted correction of an analogous place
|
b. 533
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the source version, we encounter evident, awkward in this context, parallel e-e1 and g-g1 octaves. A comparison with analogous bar 178 suggests – in the absence of arguments for differentiating these bars – a possibility of an erroneous swap of notes by the engraver of FE. Such mistakes can be found in first editions of Chopin's pieces, e.g. in the Prelude in B category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
||||||||||
|
b. 589
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Both notations are almost equivalent; however, in exposition Chopin changed the former to the latter, formally less strict yet simpler and thus more explicit, in several dozen bars (see bars 257-263). In the further part of recapitulation, it is also the latter that prevails; hence we consider this place an example of an overlooked proofreading of an analogous place and we include the change introduced in GE in the main text. See also bars 601-603. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
||||||||||
|
b. 601-603
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→EE), the minims are written in such a way that it is impossible to extend them with a dot. One can assume that the notation resulted from the minims having been added to an earlier notation of quavers only, perhaps still in [A]. Anyway, later proofreading of similar figures in exposition (cf. bars 257-263) and the notation of bars 605-606, 608, 610 and 613-618 prove that Chopin opted for a notation using one notehead, whereas the discussed bars remained uncorrected, probably due to inadvertence (it also applies to bars 607, 609 and 619-620). In the main text, we do not add a dot extending the minim in bar 602 due to the repeated bass note at the end of the bar (cf. bar 245 and 267-270). However, it is impossible to determine whether Chopin would have actually differentiated the notation of this bar with respect to the adjacent ones. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
||||||||||
|
b. 619-620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we adopt the enhanced notation, used in GE and EE. The notation of FE is probably earlier, since in the vast majority of similar bars it was changed by Chopin to the latter. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
Minor, Op. 28 No. 16, bar 2 (in GE). Moreover, it cannot be excluded that it is the original version of that place, corrected in bar 178 and inadvertently left here. This possibility is indicated by the melodic shape of this bar, analogous to the previous figure – using a recent scheme in an accompanying figure is a natural starting point in the composing process.
