Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE, the f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 14
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The version of GE is most probably a result of a Terzverschreibung error, perhaps repeated after FE, in which it was then corrected – it could be proved by various print faults in FE around this place. Chopin would often use this kind of grace notes in the octave texture – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bars 149-150, the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 11, bar 47 or Allegro de Concert, op. 46, bar 103 and 146. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
||||||||
|
b. 30
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing accent is most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. In the main text, we suggest a long accent, since the shorter mark in FE is most probably related to its atypical placement between two top elements of the chord. Generally, it is impossible to reproduce such a notation, sometimes used by Chopin, e.g. in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 2nd mov., bar 36, in print accurately. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing accent in GE is most probably an oversight. One could have doubts whether the accent corresponds to Chopin's notation accurately – according to us, a short category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
1 tied in 
in 
, mildly emphasisng the beginning of an ornamental figure, would be more suitable in this case. However, the notation of