b. 437
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The staccato dots were arbitrarily added by the reviser of GE3, whereas the slur was repeated after the previous bar. In the main text, we keep the slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), which we consider to be correct. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 437-438
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The earlier beginning of the slur in GE1 (→GE2) is most probably an inaccuracy, corrected in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
b. 437-438
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we suggest beginning the slur earlier than in the sources due to the slur in the L.H. and slurs in analogous bars 412-413. The earlier ending of the slur in GE1 (→GE2) is most probably inaccurate, whereas the staccato dots added in GE3 are an arbitrary revision. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 437
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no raising d2 to d2 before the 1st semiquaver. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE and EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals |
||||||||
b. 437-438
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In this context, the missing staccato marks must be considered an inadvertence of Chopin or the engraver of FE, which was noticed already in EE and partially – only in the R.H. – also in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |