|
b. 608
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||||||||
|
b. 609-616
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we present the GC slurring as the most precise one. Both EE and FE most probably copy the earlier stages of slurring these bars. The GE slur represents the literal reading of slightly imprecise notation of GC at the transition to a new line (bars 580-581) category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Just like in a few other places (e.g. bar 250 and 577), one can ponder whether the long grace note is just a proof of the engraver's carelessness in this place. This is how it was assessed in GE; however, according to us, the situation in this bar is different (as well as in bar 607) – Chopin would frequently use grace notes in the form of small crotchets before longer values, e.g. minims (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 1st mov., bar 208, as well as the Impromptu in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 610
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
Major, Op. 51, bar 104 or the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 209 and 212). Due to that reason, in the main text we leave the notation of 
in 