



b. 385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The last octave in bar 385 having been moved an octave lower is a revision introduced in GE3, most probably to keep the general shape of the melody (however, one cannot rule out a common mistake). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 385
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
Placing a long accent at the beginning of the bar may be questionable. In GE (→EE) the mark seems to concern both staves, while in FE and IE – rather the top one. Interestingly, this issue is also present in the interpretation of A, in which the arms of this mark are of a different length, which makes it difficult to assess its distance to the staves and the notes. According to us, graphically speaking, both versions are compliant with the A notation, although an accent concerning both staves seems to be a more natural interpretation. Therefore, this is the version we adopt to the main text. On the other hand, assigning the mark to the R.H. allows us to keep the same scheme as in the two preceding bars, in which it is only the subdominant L.H. chords that are accented, falling on the 2nd and 4th crotchet. Therefore, we consider this version an alternative solution. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A , |
|||||
b. 385-386
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic R.H. fingering added by EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
b. 386-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Shortened slurs are a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE), corrected on the basis of A in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |