|
b. 476
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, there is no accidental before the 3rd semiquaver. This patent inaccuracy, repeated most probably after [A], was corrected in GE and EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 477-478
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Simplified notation of FE (→EE), i.e. missing extension of the B semiquaver held with a tie in bar 477, and missing slurs in GE suggest that both extensions could have been added in the last phase of proofreading of FE. Chopin used such a simplified notation on a few occasions, e.g. in the Allegro de Concert, op. 46, bars 162-163. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 477
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the context of increasing dynamics, the absence of accents must be considered an inaccuracy – FE most probably overlooked the marks due to the transition to a new page. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 477
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The fact that crescendo is not explicitly led to category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 477
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we add cautionary naturals before g and e1. It is difficult to see why those marks were not added even in those editions in which accidentals were carefully revised, e.g. in EE and GE3. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
tied in 
may be explained by an oversight of the engraver or an inaccurate reproduction of [A] – handwritten indications are often much more expanded than the printed version, since it is impossible to reproduce them in such way (cf. e.g. the Mazurka in A
major, op. 24 no. 3, bars