|
b. 280
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems to be unlikely that the missing e on the 3rd quaver could have been considered a mistake, which could have been suggested by a comparison with analogous bars. In FE, a corresponding note is absent also in the next bar, thus both bars refer to the shape of the accompaniment in the previous phrase (bars 272-279). Therefore, we consider the revisions of EE and GE3 to be unjustified. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 280-281
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||
|
b. 280
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
We omit a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||
|
b. 280-281
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A the R.H. phrase mark ends abruptly between the last two notes in this bar, so both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) led it to the last crotchet. However, a comparison with analogous b. 382-383 shows that such a literal interpretation of the phrase mark of A is incorrect, since the second time Chopin dragged the slur further, to the beginning of b. 383. At the same time, the way the ending of the slur is written down there, differently than in b. 280, suggests a conscious, deliberate movement of the pen. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a longer phrase mark. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||
|
b. 280-281
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing slur in FC (→GE1) must be an oversight of the copyist. The slur was added in GE2 (→GE3), most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous b. 382-383 as well as 305-306 & 407-408. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC |
before e
2 in the main text.
