Issues : GE revisions
|
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. 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. 678
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to Chopin, this bar is supposed to be a repetition of b. 227. Due to the reasons discussed in the note concerning that bar, in the main text we interpret the mark written there by Chopin as a long accent. A similar solution was adopted also in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 679
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we add cautionary sharps before the f category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
in 
notes. Accidentals in the R.H. were added already in