b. 53
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The differences in the notation of the f1 crotchet at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar is probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE and revisions of the remaining editors. The dotted crotchet in the versions of FE and GE – regardless of the notation manner – implies a momentaneous split of the most bottom of the three upper voices, which, until that moment, was consistently led from the beginning of that phrase in bar 52. Due to this reason, we consider the crotchet in EE to be the most probably correct, where the natural sequence of the three upper voices, corresponding to Violin I, Violin II and Viola, is maintained. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 53
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The literally reproduced notation of FE must be considered inaccurate if the rhythmic values in the 2nd half of the bar are correct (we omit the issue of the f1 crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar, discussed separately, which is irrelevant in this place). Due to this reason, in the main text we move the b1 quaver before the final semiquaver of the piano reduction; both GE and EE changed the notation in the same way. On the other hand, one can imagine a situation in which it is the layout of the text that reflects the intended relationship between the solo part and the accompaniment, i.e. a simultaneous performance of the last note in the bar in all parts, and it is the rhythm in the upper voice that is incorrect. It leads to the version suggested as an alternative interpretation of the notation of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 53
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we add the [Solo] indication to emphasise the affiliation of the b1 quaver, separated from the subsequent part of the phrase due to the adopted division into great staves, to the solo part. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||||
b. 53
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
We regard the lack of slur as an oversight by the engraver of GE1, although it could have been added in FE at the last stage of proofreading. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there are no slurs in the L.H., differently than in analogous bar 13. In GE3, a slur over the 1st half of the bar was added; it is difficult to say what the motivation of the reviser was for adding only one slur in this bar. In the main text, we preserve the notation of FE, since Chopin most probably considered the legato indication to be enough – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 139, in which the sempre legato indication replaced the slurs present in an analogous place. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that legato was added as an easier way of correcting the accidentally overlooked slurs – in the entire theme (bars 54-62), Chopin provides the accompaniment with slurs already from the next bar (except for bar 58). Due to this reason, we suggest adding slurs in the discussed bar as an alternative solution. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Legato & slurs |