![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : EE revisions
b. 87
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
When interpreted literally, the fingering in FE raises doubts due to its problematic purpose – the 5th finger on D category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
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, there are no accidentals before the 4th semiquaver in the R.H. and the bottom note of the 3rd quaver in the L.H. Oversights of the symbols of the current key, typical of Chopin, were corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp in the L.H. was added also in FEH and FES. In the latter, cautionary double sharps before f category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||
b. 94
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||||||||
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we give the more accurately marked fingering of FEH. Its authenticity is confirmed by the digits written in FES, indicating almost certainly the same fingering. The fingering added by Fontana in EE is also compliant with the entries from the pupils' copies in this case. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |