|
b. 386-387
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Shortened slurs are a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE), corrected on the basis of A in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 386
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The wedge in GE1 (→GE2) is most probably a mistake. On the other hand, one can ponder whether it could be the dots that were printed in FE by mistake in place of wedges. The main theme of this movement, out of which the motif of this and the next bar is derived, was being provided with both types of markings throughout the entire movement, yet in this fragment it is generally wedges that prevail; we can observe them, e.g. next to the bass notes in bars 386-388 and next to a chord in the R.H. in bar 387. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||
|
b. 386
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 386
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 386
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The change of the arrangement of the accents in GE (→FE,EE,IE) probably resulted from the conviction of the engraver of GE that the first mark concerns the b1 note in the R.H., which does not stem from the A notation at all. In the main text we convey the difference in the size of the marks by using various types of accents. In GE the marks differ in their size, but it seems to be accidental, which is proven by the remaining editions based on GE, in which the marks are practically identical. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
omitted in 
