|
b. 384-385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing continuation of the slur in the further part of the passage in the L.H. is most probably an inaccuracy, caused by difficulties in drawing or reproducing the slur encompassing the topmost semiquavers, written by Chopin under the R.H. on the bottom stave. Various additions to the slur of FE (→EE1,GE1→GE2) were proposed in EE2 (→EE3) and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 385
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The clear wedge written in A was reproduced in GE as a dot. In FE the sign is copied so inaccurately that it cannot be considered a staccato dot; this explains its absence in EE. A possible removal of the dot in FE by Chopin, which could have left such a trace, should be excluded, according to us. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Wedges |
|||||||||
|
b. 385-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In GE2, staccato dots in the part of the L.H. were added at the beginning of bars 385 and 387 together with the slurs. See also bars 387-388. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 385-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of the L.H., being a repetition of a respective slur in the R.H., is certainly an addition of the revision of EE and GE2. In the case of GE2, in which the slur in the R.H. has the same range as in A, the compliance of this addition with Chopin's intention is not entirely excluded – see bars 376-377. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A missing mark before the last semiquaver is most probably Chopin's oversight. The fact that the soloist recalls one of the main themes of this movement in a new, yet well-prepared C major key brings peace after the turbulent orchestral fragment. In this context, a deviation from the original, diatonic course of the phrase does not seem to be justified and sounds strange. The natural added in GE is almost certainly inauthentic, the mark added in EE2 (→EE3) even more so, but the mark added in FEH (probably by the pupil's hand) may be coming from Chopin. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FEH |
2 in 