Issues : EE revisions
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
An arbitrary change of horizontal accents to vertical ones is one of the characteristic manners of the engravers or revisers of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The fingering in FES was written in pencil, by Chopin's hand, except for the 1 digit, written in quill by the owner of the collection including this copy. Miss Stirling would often 'enhance' the Chopinesque entries with ink to increase their legibility and sometimes even to save them from disappearing due to the wear of graphite (e.g. in the next bar). We include this fingering, being authentic, in the main text. In turn, the fingering in FEH, written by a foreign hand, raises doubts, since it did not take into account a longer hold of the f note, copied by Chopin. Fontana's fingering in EE is also questionable – see bar 25. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the last third on the 3rd crotchet in the bar in FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no restoring e2. The correct notation is featured in EE and GE3; the mark was also added in FES. In melodic lines led in thirds, such mistakes would happen to Chopin quite often – cf. e.g. bars 88 and 90 in this movement of the Concerto as well as the Etude in G minor, op. 25, no. 6, bar 12 or the Mazurka in E major, op. 6, no. 3, bars 11, 13 and analog. A similar situation in bar 41. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||||||||
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||||||||
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 |