|
b. 350
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 351
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
When interpreted literally, the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Sign reversal |
|||||||||
|
b. 352
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 353
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In EE1, one of the naturals was misplaced, since it was put before the 1st note of the chord, a1 (which does not require a mark), instead of before the topmost note, which, consequently, should be interpreted as d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||||||
|
b. 353-354
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing dashes marking the range of cresc. are most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
raising a to a
. This patent inaccuracy, quite frequent in Chopin's works, was corrected in 
in 
denotes a local dynamic climax, after which one should rather expect a diminuendo, not to mention a crescendo on one note, problematic to perform on the piano. Therefore, we are probably dealing with an inaccuracy or even a mistake. One can imagine two possibilities – the mark was misplaced (e.g. moved to the right with respect to the notation of [A]) or reversed. In the main text, we are inclined to agree with the first possibility due to a similarly distorted 
lowering g
