b. 469-470
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slur over bar 470 is combined with the previous slur in A. GE1 reproduced it inaccurately – the ending of the slur in bar 469 suggests continuation, yet in bar 470, opening a new line, the slur runs only from the 1st quaver. Both FE (→EE) and GE2 interpreted it as separate slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE (→GE1→GE2), the second note in the L.H. is a crotchet, as a result of which the bar contains 5 quavers. The mistake, resulting from an inaccurate proofreading (the note was being changed from b to f1, so the engraver might have erroneously printed here the next bar), was corrected in EE and GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Rhythmic errors , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE |
||||||
b. 469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems likely that the accent in FE (→GE1→GE2) was placed over a wrong note (instead of over the dotted g3 quaver). This is how it was interpreted in EE and GE3, in which this mark was omitted, and an accent in the middle of the bar was added. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 469-470
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Just like in bar 462, the missing slur must be an oversight; the slur was added only in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||
b. 469-471
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
There is no accidental before the last note in b. 469 and before the penultimate one in b. 471 in A. This patent inaccuracy was corrected by Fontana in FC (→GE). Initially, both bars were deprived of the marks in FE; moreover, in b. 469 the discussed note was printed an octave too high (perhaps considering the use of an octave sign). That version was passed on to EE1, which added only the in b. 471. In FE in the last phase of proofreading the note in b. 469 was moved to the right pitch, adding a next to it, yet the mark in b. 471 was not added. In EE2 (→EE3) the pitch of the last note in b. 469 was corrected in accordance with the logic of the passage's structure, yet the was not added. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A |