|
b. 601-603
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→EE), the minims are written in such a way that it is impossible to extend them with a dot. One can assume that the notation resulted from the minims having been added to an earlier notation of quavers only, perhaps still in [A]. Anyway, later proofreading of similar figures in exposition (cf. bars 257-263) and the notation of bars 605-606, 608, 610 and 613-618 prove that Chopin opted for a notation using one notehead, whereas the discussed bars remained uncorrected, probably due to inadvertence (it also applies to bars 607, 609 and 619-620). In the main text, we do not add a dot extending the minim in bar 602 due to the repeated bass note at the end of the bar (cf. bar 245 and 267-270). However, it is impossible to determine whether Chopin would have actually differentiated the notation of this bar with respect to the adjacent ones. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 603
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we reproduce the way the notes of the triplet are aligned under the quintuplet after FE (→EE,GE1→GE2). It cannot be excluded that it indicates a performance intended by Chopin, where the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the bottom voice are played simultaneously with the 3rd and 5th semiquavers of the quintuplet. In turn, the notation of GE3 corresponds to a strict rhythmic division, which one also has to take into consideration as potentially authentic – a strict division is suggested by the notation used in a similar figure in the Fantasy in A Major, Op. 13, bar 159. In practice, intermediate solutions are also possible, resulting from arpeggiating some dyads of the version of FE, which is technically easier for small hands: or . The latter marginally differs from strict rhythmic division. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 603
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 606
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, the last note in the R.H. is a semiquaver, which is inconsistent with the demisemiquaver rest that precedes it. We correct this mistake in an obvious manner by shortening that note to a demisemiquaver. In GE and EE, the place was revised in the same way. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 607
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The vague and most probably erroneous notation of FE was probably supposed to look like the one applied two bars later – a d2 minim preceded by an a2 grace note. We adopt this obvious interpretation in the main text; it was applied already in EE. In turn, the version of GE may be the original version, completed by Chopin in the last proofreading of FE. We give a short grace note as an acceptable variant – see bar 609. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE |
