|
b. 142-145
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The essential difference between the fingering of FEH and EE consists in the performance manner of the descending third in each group of semiquavers – in FEH, the fingers 2-3 were used, in EE – 2-4. It is difficult to say if and which of them corresponds to the fingering conceived by Chopin, since the authenticity of the fingering in these sources has not been confirmed. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 143
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The 3rd and 4th semiquavers of the bar were originally written in FE a third lower. The traces of corrections of this mistake are clearly visible in the copies of FE. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 144-152
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The accents in bars 144 and 152 added in GE3, seemingly justified by the homogeneous structure of the figurations, do not have to correspond to Chopin's intention. Admittedly, indications serving as a model, which is valid by default in an entire similarly structured section, are a frequent phenomenon in Chopin's pieces (cf. e.g. pedalling in bars 187-193 as well as accents in the Etude in C major, op. 10, no. 1 or slurs in the L.H. in the Nocturne in D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 145-146
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give the interpretation of the curved line of FE (→GE1→GE2) adopted in EE and GE3. The Chopinesque manner of writing ties as short curved lines reaching the prolonging note would frequently result in their erroneous interpretation. However, other possibilities cannot be excluded – the curved line in the autograph could have been led over the top voice, since moving slurs to the side of note heads was a routine procedure, frequently applied by engravers. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 145-146
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Due to a possible misunderstanding of the Chopinesque tie sustaining f1, in some sources the note is repeated – see the previous note. category imprint: Differences between sources |
major, op. 27, no. 1), yet in this context – descending sequences, ending with motifs of a more lyrical character (
rather does not apply to the end of the phrase in bar 146 if Chopin repeated it in bar 147) – omission of a few final marks may as well contain a suggestion to mitigate the virtuoso energy. Even the fact that for the first time two, and for the second, three accents are "missing" may be interpreted as an indication for a more pronounced diminuendo for the second time, which combines well with the course of harmonic tensions. 
