b. 646
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
A comparison with dynamic markings of analogous bars 648-650 leads to the conclusion that the short accent over the chord in the L.H. probably reproduces Chopin's intention inaccurately. Therefore, in the main text we suggest an averaged mark in terms of both its size and assignment to one or both hands. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
|||||||||
b. 646
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, one can see a trace of the original, shorter slur that encompassed only the last group of semiquavers. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
b. 647
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
We may suspect that the rhythm of EE is an earlier version of this chord's notation. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 648
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the placement of the mark, which we interpret as a long accent, is probably inaccurate in FE – admittedly, Chopin would often use a combination, yet both indications would be then written next to each other and on the same level. In this case, the accent was supposedly to concern both parts and not the L.H. only, which is suggested by the notation of FE (→GE). A short accent in GE3 is a result of interpretation of the discussed mark, performed in the light of bar 646. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Placement of markings , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
b. 648-649
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the manuscripts these bars are marked as repetition of b. 197-198. In spite of that, FE (→EE) reproduced the mark differently than before, inaccurately. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |