Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 134

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

..

GE1 overlooked staccato dots in the R.H. on the 1st and 2nd beats.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 134-135

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

2 slurs in GC, GE2 & EE

1 slur in FE

No slurs in GE1

..

The absence of slurs in GE1 is undoubtedly an oversight of the engraver, rectified in GE2. The FE version also results most probably from the engraver's mistake. The slur omitted in FE was added in EE, perhaps at Chopin's request.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of EE

b. 134-135

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

3 slurs in GC

2 slurs in GE

4 slurs in FE (→EE)

..

The comparison with analogous bars 125-126 and 133 indicates that the slurring in FE (→EE) is correct. Therefore, the longer slurs in GC and GE result probably  from misreading [A] by the copyist and GC by the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 134

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

on first beat in Atut

on 3rd beat in FE (→GE,EE)

a on 1st & 3rd beat suggested by the editors

..

In Atut, one can see traces of corrections (erasures), as a result of which some places were spilled with ink, so that it is unclear what is actually written on the top stave. However, since the clearly visible elements perfectly correspond to the orchestral part of FEorch (→GEorch), it is this version that we adopt as the text of Atut. In turn, the text of the editions, clearly different, does not bear traces of corrections in print in FE, which, however, does not mean that there were none – adding an element, e.g. a note, did not have to leave any trace. According to us, the following scenario is likely, among other things – the engraver of FE overlooked the dotted minim on the bottom stave, which was corrected by Chopin, who added an crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar. Both source versions can be considered intended by Chopin. Then again, taking into account the probably most reliable elements of both versions – playing on the 1st and 3rd beats of the bar, in the main text we suggest a version including both.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 134

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dots in FE (→EE)

..

The missing staccato dots in the R.H. are most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE