|
b. 234-240
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Overlooking four accents for the semiquavers in the L.H. in bars 234, 236, 238 and 240 is certainly a mistake of GE1 (→FE→EE). The signs were returned in GE2, but only in bars 238 and 240. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 234
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with similar bars 226, 250, 577 and 585 reveals that the discussed bar is the only one without a tenth as the 5th quaver in the L.H. (there is only its top note). Since in two out of four mentioned places (bars 226 and 585), the bottom note of the tenth was added in the proofreading of FE (it is indicated by visible traces performed in print), Chopin could have left the single note in the discussed bar inadvertently. Such omission of a correction in one of a few repeated places would happen to him quite frequently (cf. e.g. the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 10, bar 87 or the Prelude in F category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 234-235
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we suggest adding slurs on the basis of a comparison with analogous bars 226-227. The slurs were added already in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 234
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 234-235
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we give slurs modelled after the previous phrase (bars 232-233), assuming an erroneous interpretation of the Chopinesque notation in this place. Out of four similar places (bars 232-239), a division of the slur between the bars appears twice, whereas a division after the 1st semiquaver triplet – only once, in the discussed bars (in bars 236-237, none of the slurs encompass the 1st triplet). Such a change was introduced already in GE3. However, one cannot rule out that Chopin approved of a differentiated slurring of those four phrases, since it indicated various aspects of this sometimes bimelodic figuration. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
-b suggested by the editors
