|
b. 334-339
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, a double appearance of an identical indication (sempre forte) four bars apart may be a mistake of the engraver, who, apart from the correct place, unnecessarily repeated the indication a line higher or lower. Due to this reason, in the main text, we give the indication in bars 334-335 in a variant form (in brackets), being less justified after the category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 334-335
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
We consider the missing tie of e2 to be a mistake of FE (→GE1→GE2). The tie is in an analogous situation 2 bars earlier, while in the discussed place it is present in the sources of the orchestral part – clarinet I in FEorch (→GEorch) and MFrorch and MFrw. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 334
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 334-349
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A Chopin wrote and crossed out 4 pairs of category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 334-335
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In GE, FESB and EE bar 335 opens a new line, which caused the distortion of the slurs ending on the 1st quaver in this bar. In the graphic transcription we reproduce the versions of these editions without changes, whereas in the content transcription (version 'edited text') we give their most likely (according to us) interpretation. In the main text we reproduce the unequivocal notation of A and FE (the notation of FE could have resulted from Chopin's intervention in the copy of GE1 serving him as the basis, since on the basis of the notation of GE it is difficult to guess the correct version, and neither the reviser of EE nor the reviser of FESB succeeded at it). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Revisions in FESB |
in the previous bar.
mark.
dynamic hairpins. Each of the marks was more or less 2 bars long. If the crossing-out was related to the addition of the leggiero indication, it would be a trace proving the change of concept of this fragment from a casually virtuoso one to a more delicate one, which would not disturb the lyrical, intimate mood of the previous C
minor section. 
