Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 150-152
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the likelihood of the authenticity of Fontana's fingering in EE is minimal. In EE1, it clearly contains a mistake – the 3-5 sequence under the 4th and 5th semiquavers is very inconvenient. The mistake was corrected in EE2 (→EE3), changing the digit under g2 to a '4'. However, it seems to be more likely that Fontana projected the fingers 3-4 for these notes in order to avoid the 5th finger on the black key – the use of the regular scheme 512451... would not have required such a detailed marking; it would have been enough to repeat 51 at the beginning of the subsequent groups of semiquavers, like in bars 142-143. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 150-152
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 158
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with similar bars 160, 513 and 515 points to a very likely oversight of the dot extending the f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 161
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The rhythm of the 1st beat of the bar, written in FE with a mistake, allows for two natural ways of correcting it – changing semiquavers to demisemiquavers, which was performed in GE, or shortening the first note, like it was corrected in FED. We consider the latter to be more likely, corresponding to the alignment of the notes with respect to the quavers in the L.H. and confirmed by the authority of FED. Apart from the correction of the rhythmic error, the entry in FED changes also the pitch of the 2nd and 3rd notes from b1-a1 to a1-g1. This can be regarded as an alternative version to the printed text (variant); however, according to us, it is also a correction of a mistake. We can only guess how the version of EE came into being; however, nothing proves that it could correspond to Chopin's final intention. In the main text, we give the version of FED, corrected during a lesson with Chopin both rhythmically and melodically. The version is compliant with the unquestionable version of analogous bar 517. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
minim in 
