Rhythm
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
b. 94
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we give the unequivocal rhythm of FE (→EE). In GE1 (→GE2), the whole group of 6 notes was combined by mistake with a demisemiquaver beam, which was revised in GE3 by adding the digit 6 and moving the last quaver in the L.H. under f2. It resulted in a totally arbitrary and still erroneous version, since the sextuplet should be written with semiquavers in this place. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||
b. 99
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 105
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The indications of triplets are our addition. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Sustaining the c2 note was probably meant to rhythmically assimilate the 2nd half of this bar to its twin passage in the 1st half of bar 111. The fingering added in FES proves that the note at the beginning of the passage is to be repeated, whereas the version of EE is an arbitrary intervention of the reviser. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
b. 122
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing tie of e may be an oversight of the engraver of EE1, corrected in EE2 (→EE3). However, it cannot be excluded that the omission of the tie was a decision of the reviser who considered the tie to be a mistake, noticing that Chopin could have written e as a semibreve, like in bar 116. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Annotations in FEH |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »