Issues : Omitted correction of an analogous place
|
b. 50-51
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The shorter slur in Atut (→FE→GE1→GE2) is the original marking. Initially, both slurs in the previous figure also encompassed the groups of three quavers only; however, they were then prolonged by Chopin. The slur in the L.H. in the discussed bars, written last, already encompasses the entire four-note motif. The fact of leaving the slur in the R.H. without extension must be the composer's inadvertence. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
|||||||
|
b. 234
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with similar bars 226, 250, 577 and 585 reveals that the discussed bar is the only one without a tenth as the 5th quaver in the L.H. (there is only its top note). Since in two out of four mentioned places (bars 226 and 585), the bottom note of the tenth was added in the proofreading of FE (it is indicated by visible traces performed in print), Chopin could have left the single note in the discussed bar inadvertently. Such omission of a correction in one of a few repeated places would happen to him quite frequently (cf. e.g. the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 10, bar 87 or the Prelude in F category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 419-423
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The notation of the sources, in which it is only the 2nd semiquaver of the four-note figure that was separated and prolonged, appears in such a context a few times – the 2nd figure in bars 419 and 421, the 2nd and 3rd figures in bar 423 and both figures in bars 442-443. In terms of rhythmic values, this notation generally does not differ from the notation used in the remaining figures; however, it shows the middle voice in a less precise manner. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that Chopin could have intentionally preserved both notations – according to us, this notation is the original version, left by inadvertence, hence in the main text we give the more precise notation of the remaining figures. Cf. similar figures in the Etude in C category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 442-443
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
As in the case of bars 419-423, we unify the notation of these bars after the vast majority of analogous figures. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 533
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the source version, we encounter evident, awkward in this context, parallel e-e1 and g-g1 octaves. A comparison with analogous bar 178 suggests – in the absence of arguments for differentiating these bars – a possibility of an erroneous swap of notes by the engraver of FE. Such mistakes can be found in first editions of Chopin's pieces, e.g. in the Prelude in B category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
-b suggested by the editors
Minor, Op. 28 No. 16, bar 2 (in GE). Moreover, it cannot be excluded that it is the original version of that place, corrected in bar 178 and inadvertently left here. This possibility is indicated by the melodic shape of this bar, analogous to the previous figure – using a recent scheme in an accompanying figure is a natural starting point in the composing process.