|
b. 304
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The manner the 4th semiquaver was printed in FE raises doubts concerning its pitch; it may have been supposed to be a b3, like in the majority of the editions in analogous bar 288. Due to this reason, we consider that it is permissible to play b3 here if one chose b3 in bar 288. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 304
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the division of the slur reproduced in the sources is inaccurate, which is facilitated by such configuration. A possible interruption of legato would require shortening f category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 304
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Having marked arpeggio in analogous bar 287, Chopin probably considered it to be obvious in this place, hence in the main text we suggest adding a wavy line. A similar conclusion was reached by the revisers of GE3 and EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 304
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, the engraver overlooked the staccato dot for the 1st quaver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 304-308
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In this case, the staccato dots and accents added in GE3 in bars 304, 306 and 308 may be considered justified – they are authentic indications present in the R.H. in analogous bars 76, 78 and 80. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
3, written as a quaver, whereas the accented beginning of the slur (b2) would interfere with the long accent on the next note, g
] suggested by the editors
