b. 430-431
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we extend the slur until the last note of the passage by analogy with bars 426-427. The absence of the slur in GE1 (→GE2) must be a mistake of the engraver; it was added in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 430
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In the editors' opinion, the c2-e2 third in FE (→GE1,EE) is most probably a mistake of the so-called "partial proofreading" – while proofreading the erroneous c2, the engraver added the correct note (e2) but did not remove the erroneous c2. The arbitrary version of GE2 makes it possible to avoid an unjustified pianistic complication. However, it is highly unlikely that it could have corresponded to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Partial corrections |
|||||||||||
b. 430
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, the wedges were arbitrarily changed to staccato dots. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 430
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Change of the rhythmic values of the grace notes introduced in GE and – most probably on the basis thereof – in EE3 must be arbitrary and unjustified, since nothing indicates that the version of FE (→EE1→EE2) could be erroneous. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 430
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In all sources, the slurs are to be deemed inaccurate. According to us, it should encompass all small quavers of the passage and the main note to which it leads. It is compliant with the convention of writing down such ornaments. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |