|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 139-148
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs in the L.H. added in bars 139-140 and 147-148 in EE and GE3, although substantially justified, are unnecessary, since Chopin would generally consider the slurs over the R.H. to be enough in such contexts – cf. e.g. the slurs in the first part of the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 10. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The correctness of the version of FE (→EE) is confirmed by the sources of the orchestral part – MFrorch and FEorch, whereby the latter contains a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Both GE and EE interpreted the mark of FE as an accent and gave it the form of a common short accent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing slur is probably an inaccuracy of notation – cf. bars 115, 123, 267 and 275. On the other hand, the long accent over the crotchet suggests that the slur is not necessary; it is also absent in strictly analogous bar 291. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the slur in brackets. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
raising d2 to d
2. The patent mistake was corrected in the remaining editions.
before the discussed note – Chopin did not introduce changes in any of them. Therefore, the natural added in 
