|
b. 261-262
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the L.H. part EE1 overlooked both flats to d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 262
|
composition: Op. 43, Tarantella
..
In GE there is no slur over the first and second beat of the LH part. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 262-264
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In bars 252 and 264, A features clear accents on the second and penultimate quavers; such an accentuation scheme is repeated twice more in analogous bars. Therefore, omission of the 1st accent in bar 264 in GE1 (→FE→EE) must be a mistake. The accents in FE are placed inaccurately, hence in EE they were put a quaver earlier, on the 1st and 7th notes of the bar, which is a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
|
b. 262
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In EE1 (→EE2), the engraver overlooked the staccato dot over a2. The mark was added by the reviser of EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
|
b. 262
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
FE is missing a natural before the penultimate note in the bar; however, the accidental is present before the previous semiquaver, d3. Therefore, it can be likely that the engraver put an accidental before the wrong note, although Chopin would also occasionally write accidentals in such an illogical manner. In GE, the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
2 in these bars. The mistakes were corrected in 
was moved to before c3, whereas