Issues : Accidentals in different octaves
|
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no accidental before the 4th demisemiquaver before last. The missing category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
We reproduce the insertion in FEH in its literal form, interpreting the antepenultimate note as a harmonically justified a2, and not b2. It is unclear whether the added passage was meant to complete the arpeggiated chord or to replace it; we consider the first possibility to be more likely. According to us, one also cannot rule out that this entry is a kind of an abbreviation – it defines a model that is to be developed into a longer figuration. We suggest a possible addition based on this assumption as an alternative interpretation of the entry. At the same time, in the descending part of the passage, we use the idea included in a variant in FES, left without placement, which is clearly similar in terms of rhythm, interval structure and hand position. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Accidentals in different octaves , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||
|
b. 78
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
There are no accidentals before the penultimate octave in FE (→GE). However, since in those editions (except for GE3) the first half of the bar is written using an octave sign, one can consider the sharps before the 1st octave in the bar to be valid. In GE3, the notation does not feature an octave sign (like in our transcriptions), hence the missing accidentals are a manifest error. In EE, sharps were added before this octave; they were added also in FED. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
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
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign |
must be a mistake in this context, probably repeated after [A], since such inaccuracies in the notation of accidentals are typical of Chopin. The sharp was added in 
2 in the 3rd group of semiquavers. The sharp in the discussed place could have been added in 
lowering c
before c
2 (11);