|
b. 621-622
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 622-640
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the entire section (to bar 644), GE3 arbitrarily changed the authentic crotchets, opening the bar, to quavers with rests. This completely unjustified arbitrary decision could have been influenced by the rhythm in the previous bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 622
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The first three digits of the fingering given in bar 622 are repeated also in bar 625. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 623-624
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
|
b. 623-624
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The division of the slur between these bars is questionable if we take into account further slurring of this fragment, consisting exclusively of two- and four-bar slurs. Numerous examples of proofread slurs in FE (cf. e.g. bars 291-294), generally striving for longer slurs, allow us to assume that such a proofreading was accidentally omitted in this place. In the main text, however, we leave the source slurs, since they correspond to the rhythm of harmonic changes – each of the three slurs of the first phrase encompasses a fragment based on a different chord. Situations in which analogous phrases are provided with clearly different slurring, paying attention to different aspects or levels of the phrase's structure, can be encountered in Chopin's pieces, e.g. in the Fantaisie in F Minor, Op. 49, bars 77-84 and 164-171 and 244-251. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
in 
– are in all 11 analogous places. On the basis of an analysis of those marks (see 
in 
