|
b. 368
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The first three out of the given versions are certainly authentic and they present an interesting example of Chopin's works on the detail, performed in stages. In EE2, due to the skepticism concerning the correctness of the version of FE and GE1, it was replaced with another one, structured analogously to the majority of the similar bars. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 368
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
A comparison with identical bar 228 proves that an oversight of d1 is highly likely. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 368
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The form of that adverb used in FE (→GE) is wrong. In EE, the reviser replaced it with the adjective leggiero. Cf. also the Concerto in F Minor, 3rd mvt., bar 81. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 368
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The lack of staccato dot for E category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 368-369
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The difference in pedalling between these bars and analogous bars 360-361 suggests an inaccuracy of notation in one of those places. However, since both pedallings sound very good, it is difficult to decide which one should be inaccurate. Due to this reason, in the main text we strictly preserve the notation of the principal source (FE), leaving the differentiation or unification of pedalling of those bars to the discretion of the performer. In GE3, the notation of the discussed bars was changed to the one given by the sources in bar 361. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
in chord in 
