Issues : Errors in GE
|
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 f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||
|
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Naturally, the version of GE1 is erroneous – cf. all variants of this phrase in bars 47, 49 and 98, where the respective note is never lowered. A sharp was most probably added as part of a routine revision of accidentals – the reviser probably did not recognise the unusual G category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
One can ponder what type of accents Chopin meant in this bar – the markings are slightly longer than the undoubtedly short accent in bar 99, but clearly shorter than those in bar 94 (over e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 99
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing 3rd fingering digit in this bar is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
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 |
2. It resulted in a totally arbitrary and still erroneous version, since the sextuplet should be written with semiquavers in this place.
2 in 
