|
b. 288
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we suggest a slur modelled after analogous bar 304. The change was introduced already in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 288
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we add a long accent after bar 304 as well as 287 and 303. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 288
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The slur under the first half of the bar is an arbitrary addition by the reviser of EE2 (→EE3). They possibly took into account the beginning of the analogous phrase in bar 136. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 288-289
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, there are visible traces of proofreading of the slur – originally, both bars had identical slurs, encompassing only the 1st halves of each of them. As a result of proofreading, undoubtedly Chopinesque, the slur in bar 289 begins earlier, encompassing the last two notes of bar 288. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
|
b. 288
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Like in analogous b. 55, it seems unlikely that Chopin would have wanted to forgo an arpeggio in this figure. The missing arpeggio in FE could be explained by an oversight in the basis or by it having been entered into [A] after [FC] (→FE) had been finished. category imprint: Differences between sources |
