Issues : Authentic corrections of FE
b. 416-423
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE3, slurs in the L.H. were added in this fragment, most probably under the influence of analogous bars 440-444. It could be considered justified, if not for the fact that the range of the slurs was adjusted to the slurs in the R.H. not in an authentic version, but in an arbitrarily changed one – cf. a corresponding note to bars 417-424. Moreover, Chopin probably consciously rejected slurs in the L.H. in the discussed bars. It is proved by the traces of removal of the slur in the L.H. in bar 418 visible in FE; it was probably in [A] that the slurs in this section were so fragmentary that the composer preferred removing the inaccurate and misleading slurs rather than correcting them, given that the correct phrasing is indicated by the slurs in the R.H. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 424-425
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the slur of FE (→GE,EE) is inaccurate, which is proved by the slur in analogous bars 428-429 (most probably proofread by Chopin) as well as by the slurs in the L.H. in both places. The absence of slurs in further part of bar 425 is probably intentional – in analogous bar 429, one can see traces of removal of the slur over the 2nd and 3rd groups of semiquavers in FE. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 426-427
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A shorter slur is an inaccuracy of GE3. Chopin proofread this slur in FE – the traces of corrections show that the original slur would begin on the 3rd beat of bar 426 – and did not change the moment of its ending. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 437
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The traces visible in FE prove that the last semiquaver was proofread, since d1 was changed to c1. That version was probably an earlier edition of that place or perhaps also of earlier analogous bars 412, 413 and 436, changed still at the stage of manuscripts. In that case, it would be an overlooked proofreading of an analogous place. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 441
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no raising c2 to c2. Visible traces of corrections in print reveal that it was a1 that was the original version; it was moved to the correct pitch in the proofreading, yet without . This patent oversight (of the engraver or of Chopin at the time of marking the correction) was revised both in GE and EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE |