Issues : Errors in GE
b. 302
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with the five bars, which had already occurred, containing a similar procedure proves the mistake of GE1 (→GE2), corrected in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 303
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
There is no slur in GE3, which must be an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||
b. 317
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE is most probably a mistake, although, just like in the case of the majority of Terzverschreibung errors, it is possible to accept the sound result. Admittedly, the bar does not repeat the previous harmonic scheme, yet the melodic analogy remains clear, and changing the final interval would distort, for no apparent reason, the octave line implemented from bar 315: . category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
||||||
b. 319
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE1 (→GE2), the arpeggiated chord in the L.H. is an erroneous crotchet. The mistake was rectified in GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 320-321
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The presence of wedge only for the second time (in bar 321), as it is in FE (→EE), is to be considered an inaccuracy, according to us. Chopin put the mark in this bar perhaps due to the missing hand transfer, but even then, it would not mean that he envisaged a different articulation for the 1st quaver in bar 320. However, most probably, the difference came into being by accident, as a result of inadvertence of Chopin himself or of the engraver. Taking that into account, in the main text we add a wedge in bar 320. An overlooked wedge also in bar 321 is most probably a mistake of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in GE |