b. 1
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing metronome marking in Atut proves that Chopin added it in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Metronome tempos , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The manner the mark is written in Atut makes it unclear whether the mark concerns the beginning of the piece or the beginning of bar 1, like it was interpreted in FE (→GE,EE). In the main text we adopt the second interpretation, since according to the most frequently applied rule, the marks are written in the place from which they are valid or slightly earlier. A dynamic mark after the bar line separating the upbeat can be found in Chopinesque autographs – cf. e.g. the Etude in A minor, op. 25, no. 4. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Centrally placed marks |
||||||||
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur in GE3 seems to be an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The engraver of GE mistook the order of the digits in the metronome marking, placing '48' instead of '84.' category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Metronome tempos |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In this case, the missing dynamic marking at the beginning of the piece, quite rare in Chopin's pieces, indicates, according to us, dynamics in between and . In order to mark such dynamics, Chopin would use the m.v. (mezza voce) abbreviation; however, he was reluctant to do it at the beginning of the piece – cf. the Impromptu in A Major, Op. 29. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: No initial dynamic marking |