|
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The fingering of FES and much more detailed indications in FEH overlap and complement themselves, so that they most probably indicate the same fingering. In the main text, we give the more sparing indications of FES. In the fingering of FEH, it is the difference with respect to the analogous passage in bar 111 that draws our attention – a different fingering of the 2nd semiquaver in the passage is adjusted to a different articulation of the 1st note, staccato in bar 111, legato in bar 112. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||||
|
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The quite illegible entry in FEH is probably a fingering digit. The bottom horizontal dash could have been added separately; it would be then a tenuto mark, sometimes used by Chopin – cf. bar 47. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The digit, marking the hand position, written in FES most probably defines the same fingering that was described in FEH in more detail. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||||
|
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The fingering of FES confirms the authenticity of the repetition of the c category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 112-113
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The reviser of GE3 marked the 2nd half of bar 112 and entire bar 113 with staccato dots. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
2 note at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar – see the previous note.
