Verbal indications
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
According to us, the placement of the legatissimo indication, if it reproduces the notation of the autograph accurately, is of a conventional nature – there is no reason for that indication not to concern also the first half of the bar. Due to that reason, we place it slightly earlier in the main text. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Centrally placed marks , Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The easiest explanation for the missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 52
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we include the a tempo indication, present in the parts of strings; its absence in FE (→EE) must be considered an inaccuracy. In GE, a Tempo 1o indication was added (already at the beginning of the bar); it is probably the editor's revision. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 53
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we add the [Solo] indication to emphasise the affiliation of the b1 quaver, separated from the subsequent part of the phrase due to the adopted division into great staves, to the solo part. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 56
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The con fuoco indication added in GE, incompatible with the phrase's character, is most probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of that edition. Cf. the Etude in C minor, op. 10, no. 12, bar 5. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
indication is an oversight of the engraver of 
