|
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 |
|||||
|
b. 288-289
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In bar 288, in the minim L.H. chord, Chopin repeated a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||
|
b. 289
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to qualify the replacement of three two-note slurs of A with a whole-bar slur in GE1 as a mistake or a result of a routine approach of the engraver. It also does not seem to be a proofreading, understood as a change of the slurring of A. According to us, the following hypothesis is likely – the engraver initially printed the bar without any slurs (he also overlooked all staccato dots), which was perhaps corrected by Chopin, by adding one slur. In the main text we give the slurs of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. They were also introduced in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
to e1, perhaps confused by the difference in levels between this note and the e1 note in the 1st chord in the bar. The superfluous accidental was omitted in 
to e is missing.
