|
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A it is unclear whether Chopin wanted to lead the slur only to the end of bar 256 or to the end of the solo part – a typical dilemma related to the transition to a new page. In the main text we adopt the second possibility, yet the version of the editions may be considered to be equal. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||
|
b. 256
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is difficult to say what the annotation at the beginning of the 3rd triplet in FED means. It could be extension of the 6th and 7th quavers, as if notation of harmonic legato – category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
|
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
In FE, there are visible traces of removal of superfluous cautionary category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 256-260
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In the part of the L.H. neither the clef was changed to the treble one in bar 256 nor the bass clef returned at the end of bar 260 in A. These patent oversights – particularly taking into account the orchestral part of Morch with the constantly held G category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of A |
||||||
|
b. 256-259
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In EE1, there is no slur in the R.H. in bars 256-259 (even though there is its ending in bar 260). The reviser of EE2 (→EE3) arbitrarily corrected that mistake by introducing four one-bar slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
– yet, when taking into account the authentic pedalling, such a procedure seems to be pointless here.
next to all b
1 in bars 256 and 257. The signs were probably removed in the first proofreading of 
major chord – were corrected already in 
