![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Terzverschreibung error
b. 533
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The c category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||
b. 542-543
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The visible traces of changes prove that two identical Terzverschreibung errors were committed in FE – b1 instead of d2 on the last semiquaver of the 2nd beat of each of those bars. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 543
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE1, the first crotchet is a b1-b2 octave. This patent mistake could have been committed in FE, in which, however, Chopin corrected it in the last phase of proofreading. The mistake in GE1 was corrected already in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||
b. 543
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing marking of the top voice is obviously an inaccuracy of notation. In FE, the slur, placed high above that figure, suggests that stems and beam were planned here, but were overlooked by the engraver, perhaps due to the need to correct an erroneous note (one can see traces of removal of d3 at the beginning of the 3rd beat of the bar). The top voice was completed in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 581
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE must be erroneous, which is supported by the logic of the course of the melodic line, confirmed by the version of analogous bar 69 and 230. Locally, the mistake is not manifest, so the reviser of EE3, having apparently a great confidence in GE, introduced that version instead of the correct text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |