Issues : Errors resulting from corrections
|
b. 97
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE (→GE1→GE2), the upper note of the last quaver in the L.H. is an erroneous f category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 126-127
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It is difficult to determine how come that the correct text of GE2 (excluding the mistake in the 1st quaver in bar 127, discussed separately) was changed to the impoverished version of GE2a. Perhaps a worn-out fragment of a plate was re-engraved in order to remove the increasingly pronounced printing defects. Traces of such procedures are to be found, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21 – see the characterization of its GE1a. It also happened that various mistakes were committed in a newly engraved text, most frequently, precisely, oversights. However, in the discussed place printing defects are visible rather on the available copies of GE2a; hence after possible corrections (cf. e.g. the copy from the National Library in Warsaw). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 196
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
There are three natural ways to add the rhythmic value in which the notation of FE is lacking; we give them as potentially compliant with Chopin's intention. Two of them were implemented already in the first editions. In the main text, we give the rhythm adopted in GE, which, according to us, is most likely due to the calming of the course of music (rallentando in the next bar) and due to the presence of that very rhythm in an analogous context in bar 440. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 225
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The version of FE is almost certainly erroneous: both the missing interval of an octave before the topmost note of the passage and repetition of this note disrupt the regular melodic and pianistic nature of the figuration – cf. analogous phrases in bars 221 and 228-231. The correction of the text in the remaining editions was most probably introduced on the basis of comparison with the analogous bars. Moreover, a correction is written also in FEH; however, it was not the sixth but the seventh semiquaver that was changed, probably by mistake. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Annotations in FEH |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 469
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE (→GE1→GE2), the second note in the L.H. is a crotchet, as a result of which the bar contains 5 quavers. The mistake, resulting from an inaccurate proofreading (the note was being changed from b to f category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Rhythmic errors , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE |
1. The mistake was rectified in 
