Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 181-182

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In the main text, we add cautionary naturals before the d2 grace note in bar 181 and c2 in bar 182.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 181

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Quaver a2 in FE (→EE) & GE3

Semiquaver in GE1 (→GE2)

..

The version of GE1 (→GE2) must be erroneous – cf. analogous bar 536. The engraver must have looked, by mistake, at the line below and placed here the ending of bar 185, looking alike.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 182

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Dotted crotchet in FE (→EE) & GE3

Crotchet b in GE1GE2)

..

The missing extending dot of must be a mistake of GE1 (→GE2), corrected in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 182-183

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE

..

Like the last digit in bar 141, the '2' written in FEH may be considered to be Chopinesque, hence we include it in the main text. It implies a different fingering than the one given by Fontana in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FEH

b. 185

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Chord in sources (3 notes)

Our alternative suggestion (4 notes)

..

The chord on the last beat has three elements in the sources in bar 185, whereas in analogous bar 540, there are four elements. According to us, it does not provide any guarantee that Chopin indeed wanted to diversify this detail. Both versions sound good, hence the composer could have hesitated at the time of choosing one of them. This, in turn, could have resulted in deletions impeding the interpretation of [A] or in an accidental oversight of a proofreading of one of these places, which would happen to Chopin quite frequently (cf. e.g. the Sonata in B minor, op. 35, the 2nd mov., bars 10-11 or the Mazurka in G minor, op. 24, no. 1, bars 26-27). In this situation, we suggest the four-note version of this chord as an acceptable variant, enabling the performance of the same text in both places.

category imprint: Editorial revisions