Ornaments
|
b. 168
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The notation of GE may be a revision or the original version, corrected in the last phase of retouching FE (→EE). In similar contexts, Chopin would use both the notation with a written-out first note of the ornament and without; he would also use, sometimes interchangeably, small quavers or semiquavers (cf. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 2nd mov., bar 33 and 82 as well as bar 20 and 88). Therefore, both notations could be authentic, although in one of the mentioned examples (bar 33), the editor changed quavers to semiquavers. See also bar 523. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 195
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In GE, there is no apreggio mark before the 2nd chord of the bar, which is most probably an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 199-201
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Chopin did not always mark arpeggios of tenth and broader chord, perhaps considering it to be obvious. Arpeggio in analogous bar 554 confirms that the absence of the wavy lines in bars 199 and 201 is most probably simply an inaccuracy of notation. The marks were added in EE2 (→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 201
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 250
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Grace notes in the form of small crotchets are probably a mistake of FE (see e.g. Sonata in B category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
minor, Op. 35, mov. I,