|
b. 428
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
We suggest adding an arpeggio mark in the main text, since the arpeggio written in A in bar 428 is, according to us, to be regarded as the model for all analogous bars (including 466 and 468). The wavy lines were added already in EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 428
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Differently than in analogous bar 426, there is no cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign |
|||||||||
|
b. 428-429
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The revision of GE3 does not seem to be justified, since visible traces of changes prove that the slur of FE was proofread, probably by Chopin, whereas both the original and the changed slur reached the 1st sixth in bar 429. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 428
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there are no sharps before the 6th semiquaver in the L.H. (c category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||||||
|
b. 428
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
A comparison with analogous bars 176, 184 and 420 suggests an oversight of 2 or 4 staccato dots in [A] or FE. In the main text, we add dots only under the last quaver in both hands, after bars 176 and 184, in which, like here, the slurs reach the quaver in the middle of the bar. The additions in GE refer to bar 420, while GE3 also changed the slurs accordingly. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
before b
in 
before e1, unnecessary in this context. In 
2) and the middle semiquavers on the 3rd beat of the bar in the R.H. (c
