|
b. 450-452
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Both the ending of the slur in bar 450 and the beginning of a new one in bar 452 fall on musically unjustified places. That gives rise to the suspicion that the notation could be inaccurate or even erroneous. A possible cause of that inaccuracy is indicated by the correlation between the slurs and the octave sign – the first slur ends where the octave sign begins in the sources, while the second slur begins just when the octave sign ends. A similar situation occurs in the autograph of the Etude in E category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 450
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The digit four over the 4th semiquaver in the bar, written in FEH (most probably by the pupil), is only a reminder of the Chopinesque fingering from the previous bar. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 450-451
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The shorter slur of FE (→GE) is most probably an inaccuracy, perhaps related to the transition into a new line (bar 450 closes the line). In the main text, we include the accurate revision of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 450-451
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The lack of sign in GE is presumably an oversight by the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 450
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the second quaver in the R.H. is inaccurately printed – the notehead is actually at the pitch of e3, yet it is missing the ledger line that crosses it, as a result of which it can be interpreted as a d category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors repeated in GE |
major, op. 10 no. 11, bars 
w 
3 in 