|
b. 325
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Both in EE and FEH, the bar was provided with fingering very carefully, applying the same rule for the top notes of the thirds – the 1st finger on a white key, the 2nd – on a black one (cf. bars 322-324). The fingering of the bottom notes is also very similar – the 3rd finger on a black key and the 4th – on a white one; however, in FEH, the rule is modified when two subsequent white keys appear. As a result, both fingerings differ only in the digit applying to e category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 325-326
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The extended ending of the slur in FE in bar 325 – in that source it is the last bar on the page – suggests its continuation, unconfirmed, however, by the slurless first half of bar 326. The comparison with analogous bars 321-322 (as well as 329-330) proves that the slur should be continued to the 4th semiquaver of the next bar. The revisers of GE and EE deemed the end of slur in bar 325 inaccurate, and shortened it. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 325
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 325-326
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The absence of slurs in GE1 must be the engraver's oversight (four similar slurs in b. 323-325 are present in GE1). The mistake was corrected in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 325
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in the 5th triplet is questionable – when interpreted literally, it is an e3; however, in all analogous places a respective note is placed a fifth (perfect) lower than the previous one, in this case e In AsI the 5th triplet in the bar is presented in the initial form (see also bar 328), in which the problematic note is absent. The introduction of a change in this place is an argument for Chopin's mistake in A, since corrections narrow down the attention field, which is conducive to errors. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Main-line changes |
1.
3 suggested by the editors
restoring e
to the unquestionable e3 in the next triplet belongs to Chopin's typical inaccuracies – it is a note belonging to the current chord (A major) and was marked a semiquaver earlier in the L.H. part. Taking into consideration the above, in the main text we suggest adding accidentals so that the discussed fragment of the progression does not deviate from the binding scheme.