|
b. 384-385
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, the engraver overlooked staccato dots for the 1st quavers in the L.H. in these bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 384-385
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE and EE, the earlier placement of the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
|
b. 384-385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing ties of the e2-e3 octave are most probably an oversight – cf. the analogous motifs in bars 381 and 383. Due to this reason, we suggest ties of this octave in the main text. Relevant additions were performed already in EE and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 384-385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing continuation of the slur in the further part of the passage in the L.H. is most probably an inaccuracy, caused by difficulties in drawing or reproducing the slur encompassing the topmost semiquavers, written by Chopin under the R.H. on the bottom stave. Various additions to the slur of FE (→EE1,GE1→GE2) were proposed in EE2 (→EE3) and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 384-385
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The slurs/ties added in FE and EE, although certainly inauthentic, most probably correspond to the performance intended by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions |
after 4. quaver in 
