Issues : Authentic corrections of FE
|
b. 498
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The chord with e2 is the original version – Chopin removed that note in the last stage of proofreading of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 500-503
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, one can see traces of proofreading of the slurs in bars 501-503 – originally, each of those bars was encompassed with a separate slur. If we take into account that Chopin combined also the slurs over bars 496-497, one can ponder whether leaving a musically unjustified division of the slur between bars 500-501 was intentional. It is likely that the proofreading was supposed to concern this place too, yet it was inaccurately implemented. category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
|||||||||||
|
b. 504-508
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In A Chopin wrote naturals before the last note in the bar in four places – e and e1 in bar 504, E in bar 505 and e3 in bar 508. Not only did GE1 repeated these signs, but it also added corresponding naturals in the R.H. in bars 505 and in the L.H. in bar 508. The unnecessary signs were removed in FE (→EE) and partially also in GE2 (only in bar 508). category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Last key signature sign |
|||||||||||
|
b. 511-514
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is uncertain how the version of GE came to life, yet it is difficult to imagine that it could have come from Chopin in this form. This version was probably based on the conviction that the dynamics of the last chords has to be indicated in the piano part, too, which eventually led to the repetition of the markings written in Morch, not by Chopin. The completion of the piano part could have been ordered by the reviser, although one cannot exclude that the action could have been inspired by Chopin. In the second case, the composer probably had one category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 514
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we suggest adding a slur and dots after analogous bar 159. Missing performance indications could have been a result, unintended by Chopin, of a serious proofreading covering the beam and pitch of the 1st quaver (visible traces of changes in FE). category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations |
in 
