Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants
b. 119
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
FEH contains an ambiguous entry in the 2nd half of the bar – two almost vertical lines that can be interpreted as an emphasis on the entry of the solo part or, on the contrary, as a deletion of the 3rd quaver of the bar beginning the soloist part. It seems that the latter is supported by the diagonal cross over the 4th quaver, perhaps written as an additional marking of a new, shifted entry of the soloist. However, a possible variant gives rise to a number of doubts:
Therefore, the given version must be approached with great caution as a possible variant of uncertain authenticity. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
b. 221
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FEH, the ties of the d1-f1 third were crossed out. The authenticity of this variant seems to be highly likely if we take into account a number of other, almost certainly Chopinesque, variants entered into that copy. The manner the marks were crossed out resembles the Chopinesque one – cf. e.g. crossings-out in the pupil's copy of the Nocturne in D Major, Op. 27 No. 2, bar 45. In the main text, we signalise the possibility of omitting the ties with brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
b. 223-224
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The crossing-out of the tied g1 note at the beginning of the bar visible in FEH may indicate a variant – cf. analogous bar 228. It was probably meant to simplify the performance, since omission of the tie, sonically practically unnoticeable, enables the f1-g1 second to be performed with the 1st finger, which, in turn, allows for an easier fingering of the upper voice. However, it cannot be excluded that the crossing-out was only supposed to suggestively signalise that this note should not be played simultaneously with the e1-e2 octave, which is indicated by a few similar crossings-out – see bars 294-295 as well as 334-335, 370-371, 377-378. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The octave sign added in FEH most probably defines an authentic variant. According to us, it is much more likely that it was meant to move the entire figure of both hands by an octave, and not only of the R.H. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH |