|
b. 285
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur in FE (→GE1→GE2) must be an oversight of the engraver (or of Chopin in [A]) – cf. all 7 similar bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 285
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Since the obvious destination of the category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 285
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Like in b. 52 and 78, to the main text we adopt the notation of GE, based on [A]. Chopin would use both symbols interchangeably to mark a mordent; however, the version of FE may be regarded as a variant. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 285-286
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we provide the L.H. slur after the A notation. In GE1 the range of the slur was adjusted to the R.H. slur, and it was in this form that the slur was repeated by EE2, whereas in GE2 the A version was restored. It is difficult to say what the motives of EE2 were when adding another slur of the same range – it could have been, e.g. an unfinished correction in which one of those slurs were supposed to be replaced by the other, yet the stage of removal of the superfluous slur was overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 285
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The change of the type of accent in FE is an inaccuracy, frequent in Chopinesque editions. The absence of the mark in EE is most probably due to the engraver's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE |
in 
in the next bar, in the main text, we extend the mark present in 
in 
in 
