b. 41
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The slur of FE (→GE1→GE2) is most probably a mistake, hence in the main text we include a correction introduced in EE and GE3. We may be dealing here with a peculiar mark reversal – the engraver led the slur from the 1st semiquaver of the triplet to the left instead of to the right (cf. a similar mistake in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 3rd mov., bars 172-173). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Sign reversal |
|||||
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (→GE1), the top note of the 10th semiquaver is an a2 (with a ); a2 is then restored with a sharp at the beginning of the 4th beat in the bar. The unequivocal mistake of the engraver is confirmed by corrections in three out of four pupils' copies – FES, FEJ and FEH. Respective revisions were introduced also in EE and subsequent GE – in GE2, the erroneous was changed to a , whereas in EE and GE3, both marks were removed. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE , Annotations in FEH |
|||||
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Taking into account the compliance of the melodic shape and the remaining performance marks in three subsequent semiquaver groups, we consider the missing accent at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar to be an inaccuracy. category imprint: Editorial revisions |