Rhythm
|
b. 570
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the demisemiquaver beam in the beam of the 1st group of notes. The mistake was corrected in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 583
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) is probably erroneous – cf. analogous bar 232. In the main text, we preserve the nominal rhythmic values of the original version, whereas in GE3 the 1st note was prolonged to a crotchet, which may be considered an alternative reconstruction of the rhythm intended by Chopin. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
||||||||
|
b. 589
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Both notations are almost equivalent; however, in exposition Chopin changed the former to the latter, formally less strict yet simpler and thus more explicit, in several dozen bars (see bars 257-263). In the further part of recapitulation, it is also the latter that prevails; hence we consider this place an example of an overlooked proofreading of an analogous place and we include the change introduced in GE in the main text. See also bars 601-603. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
||||||||
|
b. 592-593
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slur in GE1 (→GE2) is probably a result of a characteristic mistake consisting in placing a mark in the so-called 'mirror image;' in this case, on the wrong side of the note – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., bars 172-173. The erroneous mark was removed in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Sign reversal |
||||||||
|
b. 593
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we specify the Chopinesque notation of the sustained d bass note. Chopin used this kind of simplified notation of sustained notes a few times (e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., bar 15), yet in this case a strict notation does not excessively complicate the notation (a similar notation is to be found, e.g. in the Fantaisie in F Minor, Op. 49, bar 43 and subsequent). The notation introduced in EE, although still vague, may be, however, considered to be more precise than the original one, particularly if we take into account the fact that originally a dot did not precisely determine the rhythmic value a note should be prolonged with. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
