|
b. 116
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we suggest a compilation of complementary Chopin's entries performed in pencil in FED and FES. J. Stirling probably wanted to enhance with ink the second out of four ones written in her copy, over the g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 116
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In this bar, the pedalling in the sources is most probably incomplete and inaccurate – cf. analogous bar 120. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest a solution modelled after the unequivocal pedalling in the aforementioned bar. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 116-117
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the missing staccato dots over the quaver in bar 116 and semiquavers in bar 117 must be considered an inaccuracy in the face of dots in the analogous places in bars 115-118. The mark in bar 116 was added in EE, while all three dots were added in GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 116
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 116
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The question of whether Chopin wanted the last chord in this bar to be played as an arpeggio remains open – see analogous bar 20. category imprint: Differences between sources |
1 note ending the 3rd beat of the bar, which would indicate the fingering scheme of the entire 2nd half of the bar. However, she committed a mistake and wrote it a semiquaver too far, over the first e2 in the 7th triplet (cf. notes in bar 91 and 
in 
