b. 567-568
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur over bar 568 must be considered an inaccuracy. The slur added in EE and GE3 is a revision that is easiest to implement in print. In the main text, we suggest a two-bar-long slur modelled after the authentic slur in analogous bars 216-217. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 567
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The shift of the mark most probably resulted from lack of space in [A] under the stem of the minim in the L.H. In GE, the mark was placed in accordance with the pianistic sense, i.e. at the beginning of the bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 568-572
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we omit the unjustified sharps before f2 and f in bar 568, the F1-F octave in bar 570, F in bar 571 and f in bar 572. The accidentals were omitted also in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign |
||||||
b. 569
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The additional fingering in EE only repeats the scheme indicated by Chopin in the 1st half of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
b. 569
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In this bar, there is no musical reason to release pedal earlier than in the previous bars. Therefore, the notation of FE (→EE) is inaccurate, most probably due to lack of space under the octave in bar 570 in [A], which forced the placement of the mark still at the end of bar 569 and, consequently, a respective shift of the asterisk. In GE1 (→GE2), the notation is less misleading – the mark was placed directly before . category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |