Issues : Annotations in FES
|
b. 111
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Except for a2 at the end of the 2nd triplet, the passages in bars 111-113 are built exclusively from the chordal sounds. It suggests a possible mistake of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), confirmed by a correction in FES. A change of a2 to g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FES |
||||||||||
|
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 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 |
2 in 
