|
b. 328
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
We suggest adding a long accent like it is in similar bar 324. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 328
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 328
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The first finger indicated for the d category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||
|
b. 328-331
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we interpret four category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||||
|
b. 328-331
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Like in analogous bars 100-103, staccato dots are an arbitrary addition of the revision of GE3. That addition formed a part of a more comprehensive package of editorial measures encompassing performance indications of that Tutti (e.g. staccato dots were added over the repeated g category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
bass quaver seems to be highly questionable, since it would be the only known example of such an unnatural fingering having been written down. The use of the 5th finger of the L.H. for the bottommost note was considered obvious and rarely marked. In particular situations, Chopin instructed his pupils to perform even a few subsequent notes with the 5th finger – see the Nocturne in C
Minor, Op. 35, 3rd mov., 
in 
indications. After all, it is highly likely that different lengths of marks in [A] were not so regular or meaningful, since the Chopinesque 
mark, generally also indicates an accent. According to us, Chopin most probably meant both fragments to be performed in the same manner.
