b. 340-341
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
b. 340-348
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The crossings-out and additions visible in A in b. 340 & 348 allow us to reconstruct the original version of the passage in these bars: . category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Main-line changes |
||||||||||
b. 340-341
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we suggest that the range of the mark be compliant with Chopin's entries in all three analogous places (b. 348-349, 442-443, 450-451), since we are convinced that the mark having been shifted in this place is a standard inaccuracy of notation. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||
b. 340
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The version of A featuring b1 must be Chopin's mistake, which in this case could be explained by score-like thinking – in the voice of the 2nd clarinet implementing the bottom line of the semiquavers, a restoring b is unnecessary. The accidental, present in AsI, was then added already in the stage of proofreading GE (→FE,EE), perhaps by Chopin. It is the engraver of FESB that is to blame for the absence of this accidental in this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE , Errors in FESB |
||||||||||
b. 340
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The omission of the hairpin in GE (→FE,EE) must have been a decision of the engraver of GE1, who considered the Chopinesque combination of a and cresc. an unnecessary complication. The same in bar 342. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |