Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 156-158
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In bars 156 and 158, in GE3, the repeated chords were written in an abbreviated manner as dotted minims with quaver tremolos. There is a similar situation in bar 160, 162 and 171-172. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 158
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with similar bars 160, 513 and 515 points to a very likely oversight of the dot extending the f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 160-172
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE3, the repeated chords in bars 160, 162 and 171-172 were written in an abbreviated manner as minims with quaver tremolos. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 161
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) is clearly inaccurate – it begins in the place where the octave sign ends in these editions. The slur in the autograph most probably encompassed the entire irregular group of semiquavers – Chopin would write this kind of slurs routinely, to a certain extent (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 2nd mov., bars 26, 28, 30, 31). Therefore, in the main text we suggest such a slur, introduced also in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The rhythm of the 1st beat of the bar, written in FE with a mistake, allows for two natural ways of correcting it – changing semiquavers to demisemiquavers, which was performed in GE, or shortening the first note, like it was corrected in FED. We consider the latter to be more likely, corresponding to the alignment of the notes with respect to the quavers in the L.H. and confirmed by the authority of FED. Apart from the correction of the rhythmic error, the entry in FED changes also the pitch of the 2nd and 3rd notes from b1-a1 to a1-g1. This can be regarded as an alternative version to the printed text (variant); however, according to us, it is also a correction of a mistake. We can only guess how the version of EE came into being; however, nothing proves that it could correspond to Chopin's final intention. In the main text, we give the version of FED, corrected during a lesson with Chopin both rhythmically and melodically. The version is compliant with the unquestionable version of analogous bar 517. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
minim in 
