



b. 261-262
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of FE seems to be a result of a misunderstanding at the time of interpreting [A], in which possible corrections (combined slurs?) could have impeded figuring out Chopin's intention. The versions of GE and EE must be arbitrary revisions of this most probably inaccurate notation. The notation suggested in the main text, modelled after the previous element of the progression, is practically tantamount to the notation of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 261
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A later beginning of the slur in GE3 is an arbitrary revision, introduced most probably on the basis of the inaccurate beginning of the slur of GE in bar 263. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 261-264
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of the bottom slurs in GE most probably means that they were added by Chopin in the last proofreading of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
b. 261-263
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the entire three-bar chromatic sequence, in the main text we suggest a few cautionary accidentals in the R.H. part – category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||||||
b. 261
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Chopin could have entered category imprint: Differences between sources |