Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 85
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Nothing supports the authenticity of the rhythm in GE1 (→GE2). The very likely mistake was corrected in GE3 by restoring the version of FE (→EE). (NB. the traces visible in FE suggest that the mistake could have been committed already in FE and corrected therein in the last phase of proofreading). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 86
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The sources differ in the notation of the accidentals in the 2nd half of the bar; however, none of them includes a manifest error. In relation to the notation adopted in the main text (note number in brackets):
Above all, the differences result from different conventions of validity of the marks next to the notes that are included or not included by an octave sign. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 88-90
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Like in bars 39 and 41, in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there are accidentals before the 2nd semiquaver in the 2nd half of bars 88 and 90, repeated after the last semiquaver in the 1st half. The superfluous signs were removed in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
||||||
|
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 (→EE), the duration of the 3rd semiquaver on the last beat of the bar is increased to a crotchet. Going beyond the beat of the bar, which makes no music sense, must be a mistake – cf. analogous bar 52 where the corresponding note is a quaver. In GE, the prolongation of this note was omitted, probably in order to avoid a troublesome, incomprehensible element of notation. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors repeated in EE |
before e
2 (1) or a 
before c
2 (11);
