Issues : Sign reversal
|
b. 312-313
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Due to the strict analogy between these bars and bars 296-297 (encompassing the entire, several-bar-long fragment), the version of EE, preserving this strict analogy, may correspond to Chopin's intention. In this bar, the slur in bar 313 could have been placed on the wrong side of the c category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Sign reversal |
|||||||||
|
b. 351
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
When interpreted literally, the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Sign reversal |
|||||||||
|
b. 592-593
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slur in GE1 (→GE2) is probably a result of a characteristic mistake consisting in placing a mark in the so-called 'mirror image;' in this case, on the wrong side of the note – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., bars 172-173. The erroneous mark was removed in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Sign reversal |
2-b1 in 
in 
denotes a local dynamic climax, after which one should rather expect a diminuendo, not to mention a crescendo on one note, problematic to perform on the piano. Therefore, we are probably dealing with an inaccuracy or even a mistake. One can imagine two possibilities – the mark was misplaced (e.g. moved to the right with respect to the notation of [A]) or reversed. In the main text, we are inclined to agree with the first possibility due to a similarly distorted 
