Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 250

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

No slur in sources

..

In the main text, we suggest adding a slur on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 226.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 250-251

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Triplet in bar 251 in FE (→EE)

Triplet in bar 250 in GE

..

The version of GE, in which the figures in the L.H. in the 2nd halves of bars 250 and 251 are swapped, was initially also in FE, where, however, Chopin changed it in the last stage of proofreading. It was most probably a mistake of the engraver of FE. The correct order of figurations in FE is additionally confirmed by the fingering written in FED in bar 251.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE

b. 250-252

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

No slurs in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

4 slurs in GE3

..

The slurs added in GE3 – after the authentic slurs of the L.H. – most probably correspond to a performance envisioned by Chopin. However, we do not add them in the main text, since division into particular figures results here from the very shape of motifs, emphasised by beams. Similar slurs were introduced in GE3 also in bars 256-257.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 250-256

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Accents &  in A

& accent in FC (→GE1)

Different accents in FE

Different R.H. & L.H. accents in EE

Short accents in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accents, our alternative suggestion

..

Despite significant differences in the length of the marks in b. 250, 252, 254 & 256 visible in A, we consider all of them to be accents. The mark in b. 250 in itself could be regarded as a long accent; however, in the context of two subsequent ones, we interpret it as a short accent. Due to the reasons discussed in analogous b. 118-124, in the main text we give a notation unified with four short accents; such a solution was also applied in GE2 (→GE3). The two missing marks in FC (→GE1) are most probably an oversight, while the changes introduced in EE, with differentiated accents for both hands and vertical accents, the latter being typical of that edition – a revision.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 250

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before e2. The accidental was also added in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions