Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 136
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. There is a similar situation in bar 140. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 138
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Not only was the first quaver in GE1 (→GE2) provided with a staccato dot, repeated after FE, but also – erroneously – with an additional crotchet stem. The resulting nonsensical combination was entirely omitted in GE3. In the main text, we give a wedge in this place – see the note on bars 137-140. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 140
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the staccato dot in FE (→EE) may be a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE; therefore, in the main text we suggest a wedge in this place – see also the note on bars 137-142. The absence of the mark in GE is most probably an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 145-146
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It is difficult to determine the reason the accent in GE was omitted – possible options are an oversight or a revision of GE (by analogy to bar 147?), or possibly the fact that the mark was added only just in the last phase of proofreading of FE. Not only did GE3 not complete that deficiency, but it also overlooked the mark in bar 146, which can also be interpreted as a mistake or revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 167
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The rhythmic notation of the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the bar is inaccurate in the sources. In FE (→EE), the f1 semiquaver is provided with an additional crotchet stem and also with a tie sustaining it to the next f1 on the 3rd quaver. As a result, the value of the crotchet was written in two ways, which seems to be a superfluous complication, particularly since prolongation of the respective note in the L.H. was marked only with a tie (imprecisely yet indisputably). In the main text, we suggest adding a quaver flag, which results in a precise notation taking into account all elements of the authentic notation. GE omitted the additional stem, which simplified but also impoverished the notation. Moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the tie of b (added in GE3). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
