b. 632
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Stylistically speaking, the version of GE is absolutely possible – such melodic sequences can be quite frequently found in Chopin's pieces (cf. bar 610 or bar 66 in the 2nd mov. as well as, e.g. the Ballade in G Minor, Op. 23, bar 45 and 47). However, in this case, nothing supports the authenticity of that version – in similar contexts, in spite of the step of augmented second, Chopin used a harmonic note in bar 636 as well as in bar 624, 628 and 640. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 633
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The notation of accidentals in FE, although faultless, is illogical – a cautionary before e1 appears only just before the 4th quaver, while the before c2 is unnecessarily repeated in the 2nd group of semiquavers. The remaining editions took an attempt at ordering the notation:
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
|||||
b. 634
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, one can see traces of correction of the 2nd quaver from g1 to e1. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 636
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A sharp raising c2 to c2 appears in FE (→GE1→GE2,→EE1→EE2) only just before the 4th quaver of the bottom voice. Chopin would write an accidental too late on a few occasions (e.g. in the Etude in F Major, Op. 10 No. 8, bar 43). An accidental at the beginning of the bar was added in EE3 and GE3, yet it was only GE3 that removed the in the middle of the bar, unnecessary in this situation. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals |
|||||
b. 636-637
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs of FE (→EE) are probably inaccurate, since it is difficult to find a reason that would justify their different range – cf. bars 621-629 and the remaining ones in this fragment. However, it has to be said that if it were not for the ratio of the number of one type of the slurs to the other, it would be the slurs of FE, encompassing the entire motifs, that could be considered to be more accurate. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |