Issues : Annotations in FES
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
We reproduce the insertion in FEH in its literal form, interpreting the antepenultimate note as a harmonically justified a2, and not b2. It is unclear whether the added passage was meant to complete the arpeggiated chord or to replace it; we consider the first possibility to be more likely. According to us, one also cannot rule out that this entry is a kind of an abbreviation – it defines a model that is to be developed into a longer figuration. We suggest a possible addition based on this assumption as an alternative interpretation of the entry. At the same time, in the descending part of the passage, we use the idea included in a variant in FES, left without placement, which is clearly similar in terms of rhythm, interval structure and hand position. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Accidentals in different octaves , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In this and in the next bar, the fingering digits in FES were written in pencil by Chopin and preserved in ink by Miss Stirling. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
lowering c
3 to c3 – such inaccuracies are typical of Chopin's notation and belong to the most frequent flaws in the notation of his works.
