|
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with analogous bar 311 suggests that the absence of the slur is rather an inaccuracy of notation in this case. This conclusion is confirmed by the inconsistent and most probably incomplete slurs in the L.H. in this bar. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest a two-bar slur modelled after bars 311-312. The slur was added also in EE3, yet without linking it to the next one, which may be considered an alternative attempt at reconstructing the notation of [A]. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The mark in EE3 was added undoubtedly under the influence of analogous bar 311, in which, however, the dynamic marks are generally different (even contradictory on the 3rd beat of the bar), and nothing suggests that Chopin would have accepted the possibility of compiling them. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
We suggest adding an a tempo indication (like it is in analog. bar 143), which must have been overlooked by the engraver of FE or by Chopin himself. It was added also by the reviser of EE2 (→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
We suggest adding a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
in 
before c
2.
] suggested by the editors