Issues : Annotations in teaching copies
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The authenticity of the fingering added in FEH is uncertain – see the characterization of that source. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 18-19
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Apart from the 1 digit over the last quaver in bar 18, the entry in FEH includes one more mark, which is difficult to interpret, since it may be a sharp or a slur. According to us, its placement suggests that it was supposed to combine that quaver with the minim in bar 19, which would practically indicate the same fingering as in the two remaining pupils' copies. See the adjacent note on the slur. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 18-19
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
We interpret the quite ambiguous mark written in FED at the end of bar 18 as a slur. The necessity to combine the last quaver in bar 18 with the following minim is clearly indicated by the Chopinesque fingering and probably also by the mark written in FEH. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FEH |
