|
b. 234-235
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we give slurs modelled after the previous phrase (bars 232-233), assuming an erroneous interpretation of the Chopinesque notation in this place. Out of four similar places (bars 232-239), a division of the slur between the bars appears twice, whereas a division after the 1st semiquaver triplet – only once, in the discussed bars (in bars 236-237, none of the slurs encompass the 1st triplet). Such a change was introduced already in GE3. However, one cannot rule out that Chopin approved of a differentiated slurring of those four phrases, since it indicated various aspects of this sometimes bimelodic figuration. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 234-235
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 234
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 234
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing dots in FE (→GE) are most probably a mistake of the engraver of FE – the marks are present in the three remaining analogous bars, b. 233 and 253-254 (another possibility – probably less likely – the corresponding marks could have been added at the time of proofreading of FE in b. 254). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 234
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Chopin added here dotted rhythm while proofreading FE1. The quavers in GE may be the initial version of this and previous, analogous bars (b. 171, 175 and 228), overlooked by Chopin at the time of performing corrections. Two quavers occurring in this passage in AImaz corroborate this hypothesis. category imprint: Differences between sources |
1 in 
