Issues : Errors in GE
b. 112
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 122
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedges at the beginning of the bar are most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→GE2). The marks were added in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 126-127
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It is difficult to determine how come that the correct text of GE2 (excluding the mistake in the 1st quaver in bar 127, discussed separately) was changed to the impoverished version of GE2a. Perhaps a worn-out fragment of a plate was re-engraved in order to remove the increasingly pronounced printing defects. Traces of such procedures are to be found, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21 – see the characterization of its GE1a. It also happened that various mistakes were committed in a newly engraved text, most frequently, precisely, oversights. However, in the discussed place printing defects are visible rather on the available copies of GE2a; hence after possible corrections (cf. e.g. the copy from the National Library in Warsaw). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 127
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The compliant version of FE and all sources of the orchestral part – MFrorch and FEorch (→GEorch) – proves the mistake of GE1 (→GE2), corrected only just in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge in GE3 may be an oversight; however, it cannot be excluded that the mark was removed on purpose, taking into account the absence of similar marks in analogous bars in GE1 (→GE2). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |