|
b. 308-309
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The accents in EE were added most probably on the basis of both analogous bars 292-293 and adjacent bars 307 and 310. In the main text, we suggest a similar addition; however, we apply long accents, just like in the remaining bars. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 308-309
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Like in b. 23-24 and analogous, in the main text we follow FE, proofread by Chopin, in which he added three d notes in the L.H. part: on the 1st and 3rd beats of b. 308 and on the 1st beat of b. 309. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 308
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Due to the traces of removal of f1 from the 1st R.H. chord visible in FE, it is almost certain that this place underwent Chopinesque proofreading. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 308-309
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The corrections and erasures visible in A reveal that Chopin initially wrote a slur only over the semiquaver sextuplet. Similar changes of conventional slurs related to the notation of irregular groups into motivic slurs are also to be found in other pieces by Chopin, e.g. in the Etude in C minor, Op. 10 No. 12, bars 52-62. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Triplet slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 308
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The fact that the A version was restored at the stage of proofreading FE2 (→EE), perhaps at Chopin's request, indicates that the FE1 version is almost certainly erroneous. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
2-g2-c3 in