|
b. 620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, it is unclear whether the last note of the bottom voice should be encompassed with the slur or not. In the main text, we lead the slur to the penultimate note in the belief that Chopin used here portato articulation, which he marked with dots under a slur. In EE, the slur encompasses the entire group of 9 notes, which can be considered a variant, since such an interpretation is equally likely. The missing slur in GE and the con forza indication in FE, placed too low, which impeded drawing the slur, suggests that the slur was added in the last phase of proofreading of FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The additional dot in GE seems to be a routine addition of the engraver, convinced of the mark having been overlooked in FE. On the other hand, such an oversight cannot be excluded. In the main text, we stick to the version of the principal source – FE, which is also supported by the fact that the articulation of the final demisemiquaver results from the rhythmic context and does not require specification. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we add a digit defining the rhythmically homogeneous irregular group, in accordance with the layout of the quavers in the L.H. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 621
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE the first two quavers - D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors of GC |
||||||||
|
b. 621
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources |
-E in 
