|
b. 91
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 91
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
It is difficult to assign the digits written in FES to a natural fingering. The most likely explanation is that Miss Stirling committed a mistake at the time of writing them in ink on the basis of the Chopinesque indications written in pencil. Taking into account the fingering in the 1st half of the bar, one could suggest two possibilities: the '3' was supposed to be written under the '5' and not after it or the '3' was written by mistake instead of a '4'. We suggest only the second possibility as an acceptable variant, since it is totally compatible with the fingering from the 1st half of the bar. In the main text, we include only the first of the digits written in FES – its authenticity does not raise any doubts; moreover, together with the previous digits, it clarifies the fingering on the 3rd beat of the bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 91
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The variant written in FEH bears all the hallmarks of authenticity – pianistic and harmonic dexterity as well as the smoothness of the transition to the next bar (cf. a similar procedure in the variants added in the Nocturne in D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 91
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The rhythmic division of the 4th beat of the bar is not certain in FE – the digit '5' is put over the fourth semiquaver (in the group of five). The correct digit was either inaccurately placed (the '5' describing the quintuplet should be over the 3rd note) or the engraver inserted the '5' by mistake instead of a '3' marking the last three semiquavers as a triplet. None of the pupils' copies includes hints on rhythm. In the main text, we adopt the first possibility, based on an assumption that the notation of FE, although inaccurate, does not contain a mistake. The version with quintuplet, written unambiguously, is present in GE and EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 91
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (→EE), the duration of the 3rd semiquaver on the last beat of the bar is increased to a crotchet. Going beyond the beat of the bar, which makes no music sense, must be a mistake – cf. analogous bar 52 where the corresponding note is a quaver. In GE, the prolongation of this note was omitted, probably in order to avoid a troublesome, incomprehensible element of notation. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors repeated in EE |
1 in 
1 in 
major, op. 27, no. 2, 
