Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 48-49
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing articulation markings in bar 48 in FE (→GE) must be an oversight – in Atut, there is only one staccato dot, which could have easily escaped the attention of the engraver. It is also unclear whether the absence of indications for the 2nd and 3rd octaves means that Chopin wanted to repeat the articulation scheme of bar 46 or whether he wanted staccato to be continued. The reviser of EE adopted the first interpretation; however, he repeated the erroneous marking of FE (→EE) from bar 46. The editors of mUltimate Chopin incline towards the second, less obvious possibility. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing staccato dot for the octave in the L.H. must be an oversight of the engraver of FE (→EE). In GE, the dot in the R.H. was also overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 56
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of dots in the editions must be a result of an oversight of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE), who also overlooked the slur. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 77
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
in 
