Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 581
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE must be erroneous, which is supported by the logic of the course of the melodic line, confirmed by the version of analogous bar 69 and 230. Locally, the mistake is not manifest, so the reviser of EE3, having apparently a great confidence in GE, introduced that version instead of the correct text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||
|
b. 581
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Omission of the wedge over G is most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE3, although one also cannot exclude a revision, motivated, e.g. by the missing staccato mark in similar bar 597. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
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. 601-602
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to determine whether the missing slur results from an oversight of the engraver of FE or from a later proofreading of FE. Anyway, the slur is undoubtedly authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 608
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
