|
b. 382
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Both fingerings could be coming from Chopin, yet their possible authenticity is unconfirmed. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FEH |
||||||||
|
b. 382
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the R.H. part, FE has only two naturals in the first semiquaver triplet. This inaccuracy, typical of Chopin, was corrected in the remaining editions – GE1 (→GE2) added a category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
||||||||
|
b. 382-383
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The interpretation of the phrase mark of A by FE (→EE) must be considered inaccurate: the phrase mark of the manuscript is pulled to the beginning of b. 383, while the bold ending of the slur proves a careful, diligent stroke of the pen. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 382-383
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing slur for the L.H. is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. After all, it cannot be excluded that, looking at A, he regarded the L.H. slur as the beginning of the R.H. slur, which can be indicated by the original range of the R.H. slur in FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 383-384
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
It is hard to consider a longer mark in GE as an accurate copy of the GC notation (in any case, in bars 41-42 the same notation was read more accurately), while a long accent present in EE may exemplify Chopin's intentions. In the main text we present a version based on two consistent sources, GC and FE that most probably originated from the two autographs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
before the penultimate semiquaver of the bar, while 
