|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to guess what kind of factors influenced EE for arbitrarily changing, only in this bar, 3 accents over b3 to vertical ones. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The version of EE and GE3 is a revision unifying this bar with analogous bar 324. It cannot be ruled out that FE misinterpreted the notation of [A] in this place, hence that version may be considered an equal variant. However, in the main text we preserve the notation of FE (→GE1→GE2), which, despite being apparently less accurate, suggests a performance nuance that was perhaps intended by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The added wedge may be considered justified – in analogous bars the respective note is always marked staccato. In spite of that, in the main text we preserve the version of FE (→GE1→GE2), since the note may be considered to be the first appearance of the top pedal note, and it cannot be excluded that Chopin imagined it being performed differently than before. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
We suggest an accent in the main text, as in the preceding bar. The mark was added in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The versions of GE and FE can be considered equal variants, since each of them may be authentic; moreover, it seems impossible to determine their chronology. In the main text we give the version of FE, our principal source. The version of EE1 is most probably a mistake of the engraver, revised in EE2 (→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources |
