|
b. 221-222
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE, the bars are separated with a double bar line, which was a routine procedure while changing the key signature. In the main text, we preserve the undoubtedly authentic notation of FE (→EE) with a single bar line – Chopin's autographs prove that the composer generally did not use double bar lines at the time of changing the key (cf. e.g. the Mazurka in C major, op. 24, no. 2, bar 56). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 222
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE is probably an authentic original version, corrected by Chopin in FE (→EE) during last retouches. It is indicated by the layout of notes in FE, corresponding to the rhythm of GE and not FE, which may mean that the extending dot of c category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||
|
b. 223
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 223-225
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slurs may be a result of graphic difficulties in reproducing the slurs caused by the original layout, in which the topmost notes in the L.H. are written on the top stave. As there are no doubts that the accompanying quaver figures should be performed legato, in the main text, we add slurs on the basis of comparison with the analogous bars of the recapitulation (bars 574-576). Such an addition was introduced already in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 224
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→EE), there is a (cautionary?) category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
2 and the semiquaver beam next to d
before the 5th quaver. The unnecessary mark was removed in