b. 18
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The accent in GE was probably overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||
b. 20-22
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
We consider the missing staccato dots in the part of the L.H. to be an inaccuracy of notation. In this context, in the face of the dots over the chords in the R.H., the use of such an articulation does not raise doubts; moreover, staccato marks for the L.H. are present in all similar places – bars 16-17 (added in a proofreading of FE), 501-502 and 505-507. In GE, dots were added only in bar 20. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, Chopin changed the initially written to in Atut, probably with an intention of leaving place for a subsequent crescendo. However, the correction turned out to be incomprehensible for the engraver of FE (→GE,EE), who preserved . Like in bar 16, the mark in Atut is written between the chords, which, according to us, does not mean that it should be applied from the 3rd beat of the bar, like it was reproduced in the majority of the editions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections |
|||||||||
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing staccato dots in Atut is most probably Chopin's oversight, which was corrected in FE (→GE,EE). Dots are present also in the respective bar of the recapitulation (bar 507). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |