b. 396-399
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The absence of wedges in GE3 seems to be intentional – the marks in these bars could have been considered erroneous, whereas Chopin could have wanted to mark in this way only the final progression (from bar 402). According to us, it is more likely that it is the missing marks in bars 399-402 that are a result of an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 397
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Long accent present in FE may well be perceived as optional interpretation of the remaining sources notation. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||
b. 397-398
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The engraver of GE1 did not understand the notation of A and omitted both ties of c2. The mistake was corrected in FE (→EE), probably by Chopin. The correct interpretation of A was introduced also in GE2. See also bars 401-403. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 397-398
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 397-398
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The marking was placed in FE before the chord on the 3rd beat in bar 397. This kind of placement is not something unusual, yet, together with the small gaps between the notes, it could have misled the engraver or reviser of EE. Repetition of in bar 389, also before the c2 minim, suggests that such a placement was considered to be more likely due to the absence of any accents on these minims, differently than in analogous bars 53-54 and 57-58, in which EE has a and bars 401-402, which include accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies |