Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 608
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Just like in a few other places (e.g. bar 250 and 577), one can ponder whether the long grace note is just a proof of the engraver's carelessness in this place. This is how it was assessed in GE; however, according to us, the situation in this bar is different (as well as in bar 607) – Chopin would frequently use grace notes in the form of small crotchets before longer values, e.g. minims (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 1st mov., bar 208, as well as the Impromptu in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 611
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE3, the slur combining the last two quavers in the L.H. must be inauthentic, while its absence in the remaining sources may be considered justified – the interval between those notes exceeds the hand span. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 611
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
Major, Op. 51, bar 104 or the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 209 and 212). Due to that reason, in the main text we leave the notation of 
