|
b. 79-83
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In bar 79 in Atut, Chopin wrote a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 79
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we omit the sharps, unjustified in this context, before the d category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 81-82
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The tie of B, added in EE by Fontana, is most probably inauthentic. A comparison with analogous bars in the solo part, bars 238-239 and 242-243, suggests, however, a possibility that the tie could have been overlooked by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 81-82
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 82
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Like in bars 78-79, the original phrasing of Atut was changed in the proofreading of FE, most probably by Chopin. In this case, however, the result of the proofreading is unclear – the slurs are placed imprecisely; one can have doubts whether Chopin actually wanted the slurs on the 2nd crotchet in bar 82 to interlock. At the same time, the second slur is placed less carefully than the first one, hence a proofreading of the beginning of this slur seems to be more justified than a proofreading of the ending of the previous one. It is this version, analogous with bar 78 and introduced already in GE3, that we adopt in the main text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
only before the top note of the octave at the beginning of the bar, which was corrected already in 
1-d
in 
