Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 57
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The 1st finger added next to the d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The absence of both dynamic markings – see the previous note – suggests an oversight of the engraver of GE; however, it cannot be excluded that Chopin added them in the last phase of proofreading of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 74
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Nothing indicates the authenticity of the versions of GE or EE – the first is most probably a result of an oversight, the second – a revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 76
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 78
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
There are no accidentals before the penultimate octave in FE (→GE). However, since in those editions (except for GE3) the first half of the bar is written using an octave sign, one can consider the sharps before the 1st octave in the bar to be valid. In GE3, the notation does not feature an octave sign (like in our transcriptions), hence the missing accidentals are a manifest error. In EE, sharps were added before this octave; they were added also in FED. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in GE |
1 note, most probably in the last phase of proofreading of 
