Issues : Annotations in teaching copies
|
b. 160
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 160-162
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing slurs over three subsequent figures in bars 161-162 (in both hands) must be a result of graphic difficulties at the time of writing slurs between the parts of both hands, written on one stave. In EE and GE3, in which each hand was placed on a separate stave, the slurs were added. According to us, the three-bar slur entered in FEH emphasises the difference in articulation and in general character between bars 156-159 and 160-162 and the following ones. In the main text, we do not include that slur, having the nature of a teaching comment. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 167
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we suggest the accent added by Chopin in FED as a possible clarification of performance. While writing the Concerto, Chopin could have considered an emphasis on the minor subdominant, breaking the strictly diatonic sequence and preparing the eventual consolidation of a new key, A major, to be obvious; however, the pupil's performance of this place apparently lacked in the relevant importance. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 172-173
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 175
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources |
