Issues : Errors in EE
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
|
b. 321
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give the unquestionable, as far as the sources and music are concerned, version of FE. The octave in GE and EE may be either a mistake or a revision; at the same time, in each of these editions, the reason could have been different. In each case, the fact that the revisers did not take into account the analogy with the two previous bars is puzzling. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 324
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FEH, the fingering digits for the 5th and 4th last semiquavers – 1-2 – are written twice, with different pencils. Since it was the same digits that were written twice, it seems that the person who was writing them for the second time did not notice the notation or wanted to enhance its legibility. In both cases, one of the writing persons could have been Chopin, hence we include those digits in the main text. The fingering digit given for the 9th semiquaver in EE is most probably erroneous – we are almost certainly talking about the 2nd finger and not third, as the digit '2' should be understood in the English system of marking fingers. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||
|
b. 351
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
When interpreted literally, the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Sign reversal |
|||||||||
|
b. 353
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In EE1, one of the naturals was misplaced, since it was put before the 1st note of the chord, a1 (which does not require a mark), instead of before the topmost note, which, consequently, should be interpreted as d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||||||
|
b. 391
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In EE2 (→EE3), there is no wedge next to the 1st quaver of the bar. It must be an accidental oversight, a side effect of the arbitrary change of pitch of that note – see the adjacent note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
in 
denotes a local dynamic climax, after which one should rather expect a diminuendo, not to mention a crescendo on one note, problematic to perform on the piano. Therefore, we are probably dealing with an inaccuracy or even a mistake. One can imagine two possibilities – the mark was misplaced (e.g. moved to the right with respect to the notation of [A]) or reversed. In the main text, we are inclined to agree with the first possibility due to a similarly distorted 
2. A reduction of this version would be contrary to the orchestral part, in which it is d2 that is featured in oboe I, clarinet I and violin I. The mistake was corrected already in - « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »