|
b. 320-321
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In each of three analogous bars (bars 319-321), the sources feature a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals |
||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to guess what kind of factors influenced EE for arbitrarily changing, only in this bar, 3 accents over b3 to vertical ones. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
We suggest an accent in the main text, as in the preceding bar. The mark was added in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 321
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) must be inaccurate, perhaps as a result of an erroneous interpretation of [A] – Chopin, while writing a slur over the accents of the top voice, obvious to him, could have not noticed that the 1st quaver of the bar, placed much lower, turned up under the slur. In GE3, the slur was omitted, perhaps taking into account its inadequacy to the natural phrasing resulting from the texture. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
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 |
before the 1st semiquaver of the 3rd beat. According to us, when the figure is repeated, in bars 320-321, the marks are no more necessary.
