|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing wedge in GE3 may be an oversight; however, it cannot be excluded that the mark was removed on purpose, taking into account the absence of similar marks in analogous bars in GE1 (→GE2). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 132-136
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In GE1 the minim is printed at the pitch of e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
FE (→GE) are lacking in the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
A long accent could have been added in the penultimate stage of proofreading of FE; it is indicated by the absence of the mark in EE along with the shift of dim. – see the previous note. In GE the mark was almost certainly erroneously interpreted as a category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
before the 9th semiquaver in bars 132 and 136. The patent inaccuracy was corrected both in 
1 in 
restoring f2 on the 11th small note and in the 
restoring b
in 