Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 127
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The position of the curved line of Atut, reproduced in FE (→EE), is questionable – it seems that it combines both e notes in this bar. The absence of the curved line in GE1 (→GE2) is most probably a mistake, perhaps caused by ambiguity of the curved line of FE. The curved line added in GE3 could have been an attempt at interpreting that curved line, which is accurate, according to us, also with respect to the curved line of Atut. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 153-154
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing staccato dots in EE and GE may be attributed to either a common oversight of the engraver or an omission due to misunderstanding of this subtle articulation detail – cf. a similar situation in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 90. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 177
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing accent in GE must be an oversight. The long accent in EE1 seems to be an inaccuracy, which EE2 (→EE3) tried to correct by shifting the mark slightly to the left. In such a context, it is highly likely that it is a long accent that corresponds to the notation of [A]. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 181
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE1 (→GE2) must be erroneous – cf. analogous bar 536. The engraver must have looked, by mistake, at the line below and placed here the ending of bar 185, looking alike. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 182
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
