



b. 437
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals |
|||||||||
b. 437-438
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In this context, the missing staccato marks must be considered an inadvertence of Chopin or the engraver of FE, which was noticed already in EE and partially – only in the R.H. – also in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 438
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In FE before the chord there is natural on e2. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||||
b. 438
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In A there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||
b. 438-439
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, both beginning the slur only just from the 2nd beat of the bar and the gap at the transition between the bars look like accidental inaccuracies that are probably related to the layout. In FE, and most probably also in [A], the b-c1 semiquavers opening the passage are written on the bottom stave, which hampers the placement of the beginning of the slur (it was considered an inaccuracy already in EE). In turn, the division of the slur could have resulted from, e.g. the transition into a new line. In the main text, we give a slur modelled after the unequivocal slur in analogous bars 434-435. The absence of slurs in GE3 must be regarded as a mistake – it was probably an oversight or an unfinished revision. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |