![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Rhythmic errors
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 |
|||||||
b. 94
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||||
b. 94
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we give the unequivocal rhythm of FE (→EE). In GE1 (→GE2), the whole group of 6 notes was combined by mistake with a demisemiquaver beam, which was revised in GE3 by adding the digit 6 and moving the last quaver in the L.H. under f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |