|
b. 251
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
There is no indication that the version of GE could be possibly authentic – a comparison with analogous bars 227, 235 and 586 proves that it must be an example of a Terzverschreibung error. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||
|
b. 252-255
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 252
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is only a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||
|
b. 253
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→GE,EE), there is no digit determining the rhythmic shape of the group of 7 quavers. The alignment of notes with respect to the L.H. adopted in FE (→GE1→GE2) suggests the following grouping: category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 254-255
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur in GE is most probably an oversight, although the addition of the mark in the last proofreading of FE (→EE) cannot be entirely ruled out. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
in 
mark in this bar. It may be a trace of a more serious mistake, encompassing half of the line (4 bars) – the mark is missing in 
mark that was overlooked at the beginning of the bar in the discussed place. A corresponding mark was added already in 
, which combines well with the stretto indication, written in the 2nd half of the bar. Due to this reason, we preserve this notation in the main text. However, 
septuplet, may be considered a fully-fledged variant. Practically, the written down rhythm serves as inspiration only; its performance should be uninhibited, smooth and emotionally suggestive. 
