Issues : Errors repeated in GE
b. 149
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→GE1), the last 8 notes are written as 2 groups of semiquavers. The division into groups suggests that Chopin meant a strict and regular division, so the notes should be demisemiquavers. A respective change was introduced in EE and GE2 (→GE3). Additional beams were added also in FEJ, although it is impossible to confirm the authenticity of such a non-characteristic entry. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE |
|||
b. 155
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Placing the mark only just under the 2nd quaver must be a result of misunderstanding of the notation of the handwritten base text – due to the lack of space, Chopin would often put pedalling marks next to low-located notes. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
|||
b. 252
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is only a mark in this bar. It may be a trace of a more serious mistake, encompassing half of the line (4 bars) – the mark is missing in bar 249, opening the line. However, taking into account the unquestionable pedalling indications in the subsequent bars, we assume that it was simply a mark that was overlooked at the beginning of the bar in the discussed place. A corresponding mark was added already in EE and GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|||
b. 272
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE1 (→GE2), there is no before the second quaver. It must be a mistake – between two bars based on the same four-note diminished chord containing g, a possible g would require a cautionary , not to mention the tied g in violin II. It was most probably [A] that was the source of the mistake, since the in FE was added only just in print. The mark was added in GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE |
|||
b. 408
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→EE), there is no restoring g1 in the chromatic sequence in the R.H. In GE, this patent mistake was corrected. In addition, in FE there is no raising c1 to c1 in the L.H. This mistake was corrected both in GE and EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |