Ornaments
|
b. 255
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slashed grace note in GE is most probably a revision or maybe an inaccuracy. In the main text, we preserve the notation of FE (→EE), which is probably authentic. There is a similar situation in bar 257. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 257
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Like in bar 255, in the main text we give a long grace note on the basis of FE (→EE). The slashed grace note in GE is either an inaccuracy or routine revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 267-271
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The original, then corrected, most probably by Chopin, notation of the first note in bar 267 and following: category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
|
b. 300-301
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE1 (→GE2), all grace notes are non-slashed in these bars, which is one of the indications of evident distraction of the engraver of GE1 in bars 299-302 (other mistakes include an overlooked quaver flag in bar 300, an erroneous last semiquaver in the L.H. in bar 300, Terzverschreibung errors in the chords in bars 300 and 302 as well as, most probably, three overlooked category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 304
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Having marked arpeggio in analogous bar 287, Chopin probably considered it to be obvious in this place, hence in the main text we suggest adding a wavy line. A similar conclusion was reached by the revisers of GE3 and EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
.
marks in bars 299-301). The grace notes were written correctly in 
] suggested by the editors