|
b. 326
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The type of the accent used by Chopin at the beginning of this bar is unclear. The shape of the sign suggests a short accent, and this is how it was reproduced in GE. However, in all similar bars – bars 4, 10, 26, 28, 328, 334 and 336 – the accent in the R.H. is a long accent. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest a long accent. The versions of FE and EE are inauthentic: the first is inaccurate, whereas the second – clearly erroneous. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 326-328
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Omission of the staccato dots under c in bars 326 and 328 must be a mistake of GE1 (→FE). The sign in bar 328 was added in EE most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 336. In GE2 the dots were added in accordance with A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 326-328
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 326
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, the 8th and 10th semiquavers in the R.H. are a b category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 326
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
2. The harmonic and pianistic context point to patent mistakes, which were corrected in 
before the 10th note was not added. The absence of corrections in the pupils' copies proves that the pupils most probably performed the correct text, perhaps without checking thoroughly the notation. 
before f