|
b. 671-674
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs added in GE3 are modelled on the authentic slurs in analogous bars 99-102 and 111-114. The addition may be considered justified, although in the case of the second slur, the autograph – contrary to the editions – rather suggests leading it to the beginning of bar 675. In the main text, we leave the economical notation of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 672-677
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we give an almost six-bar category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 675
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The absence and change of the staccato mark in GE1 (→GE2) is probably a result of carelessness of the engraver. A dot for the R.H. was added in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||||||
|
b. 676-677
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The pedalling added by Chopin in FC (→GE1) in b. 225-226, of which the discussed bars are an exact repetition, is inaccurate, according to us: see the note concerning these bars. A corresponding change was introduced in GE2, yet GE3 returned to the notation of FC. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 677
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing fingering digit in GE could be explained by it having been added by Chopin in the last proofreading of FE. However, the fact of having left a few mistakes, particularly the wrong note at the beginning of the bar, rather suggests that the composer did not address that bar in the last phase of work on the text of FE and that GE simply overlooked the digit. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
in 
