|
b. 279
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 280
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems to be unlikely that the missing e on the 3rd quaver could have been considered a mistake, which could have been suggested by a comparison with analogous bars. In FE, a corresponding note is absent also in the next bar, thus both bars refer to the shape of the accompaniment in the previous phrase (bars 272-279). Therefore, we consider the revisions of EE and GE3 to be unjustified. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 281
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The added e on the 3rd quaver is a revision of GE3, both arbitrary and unjustified. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 281
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
A comparison with analogous phrases at the beginning of this movement of the Concerto may point to an inaccuracy of the slur in the 1st half of the bar – see the note to bar 30. We include that possibility in the form of our alternative suggestion. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 283-284
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) is almost certainly too long – the engraver must have confused the b3 quaver in bar 283 with the b2 quaver in bar 284, which is placed at the same height. Therefore, we acknowledge the correction introduced in GE3 in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
before the last f
1. The accidental was added already in 
