|
b. 110-111
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
GE3 arbitrarily marked articulation of all semiquavers – the majority – staccato, two – legato. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 110
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
GE3 arbitrarily added a slur over the first two semiquavers of the 2nd half of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 110-111
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 110-112
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The pedalling in these bars was added later: undoubtedly by Chopin in the proofreading of FE (→EE). However, one can have doubts whether the intention of Chopin's proof entry was interpreted correctly, since there is no reason to release pedals in the middle of the bar instead of at the end of it, like in all the remaining bars. Consequently, in the main text we give the version of GE2 (→GE3) modelled after the Chopinesque entry in FC in analog. b. 242-244. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 110-114
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In b. 110 and 114 Chopin initially wrote short accents over the R.H. chords in AF; eventually, he wrote the marks between the staves. However, the new marks are longer and narrower, which makes them resemble long accents. According to us, Chopin could have adjusted the font of the marks to the small space between the chords of both hands. We consider both interpretations to be possible, yet to the main text we choose short accents, compliant with those present in rhythmically analogous b. 112 and 116. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
