Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 124
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Initially, FEH copied the 4th finger for the 1st semiquaver in bar 124, which was then changed to the 5th one, which distinguished that fingering from the one given by Fontana in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 128-129
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 130-143
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the majority of the accents in bars 130-131 and analog. are long accents – 7 out of 11 (compared to 2 short and 2 ambiguous); the ratio in GE1 (→GE2) is similar. Taking into consideration the fact that the Chopinesque mark of a long accent was not considered by the engravers to be a long accent but rather a short one or a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 132-136
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 136-137
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Like in bars 128-129, the fingerings entered in FEH and given by Fontana in EE complement the Chopinesque printed indications. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEH |
hairpin, we regard such a representation as a proof that Chopin meant long accents in this place.
before the 9th semiquaver in bars 132 and 136. The patent inaccuracy was corrected both in 
