Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 620

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

c1 in FE (→GE1GE2)

c1 in EE & GE3

c1 suggested by the editors

..

The missing accidental before the 4th semiquaver in FE (→GE1GE2) must be an oversight – in such figures, enveloping the initial note like a grupetto (very frequent in Chopin's output), two bottommost notes constitute an interval of a minor or major second, but not augmented. We add a ​​​​​​​, which is most likely in this place (cf. e.g. bar 220). The accidental was added already in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 620

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

8-note slur in FE (probable reading)

No slur in GE

9-note slur in FE (possible reading→EE)

..

In FE, it is unclear whether the last note of the bottom voice should be encompassed with the slur or not. In the main text, we lead the slur to the penultimate note in the belief that Chopin used here portato articulation, which he marked with dots under a slur. In EE, the slur encompasses the entire group of 9 notes, which can be considered a variant, since such an interpretation is equally likely. The missing slur in GE and the con forza indication in FE, placed too low, which impeded drawing the slur, suggests that the slur was added in the last phase of proofreading of FE

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 620

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

8 staccato dots in FE (→EE)

9 dots in GE

..

The additional dot in GE seems to be a routine addition of the engraver, convinced of the mark having been overlooked in FE. On the other hand, such an oversight cannot be excluded. In the main text, we stick to the version of the principal source – FE, which is also supported by the fact that the articulation of the final demisemiquaver results from the rhythmic context and does not require specification.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 620

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In the main text, we add a digit defining the rhythmically homogeneous irregular group, in accordance with the layout of the quavers in the L.H.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 621

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

D-E in EE

G1-C in GC (→GE) & FE

..

In EE the first two quavers - D-E - judging by the identical notation of the other sources are erroneously written. It needs to be said as well that there is an error in the notation of the second quaver of the bar in GC that may mislead a reader as it is E written out with a ledger line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors of GC