Issues : GE revisions
b. 466-470
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we preserve the version of FE (→GE1→GE2), devoid of accents in the L.H. in bars 466 and 470. In EE, accents were added in both bars, in GE3 – only in bar 470. We consider the additions to be unjustified due to the function of this bar in the structure of the two- and four-bar section – see bar 458. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 467
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the absence of a staccato mark over the 1st quaver is an oversight. In the main text, we suggest a wedge, since it appears in the majority of similar places. The mark was added here already in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 468-469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we suggest adding long accents after analogous bars 460-461 and 456-457 and 464-465. Accents (short) were added already in EE as well as in GE3. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 468
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The shorter slur in GE must have been an arbitrary decision, perhaps resulting from a comparison with analogous bar 460. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems likely that the accent in FE (→GE1→GE2) was placed over a wrong note (instead of over the dotted g3 quaver). This is how it was interpreted in EE and GE3, in which this mark was omitted, and an accent in the middle of the bar was added. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |