|
b. 59
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 60
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
GE features an erroneous rhythm on the 2nd quaver of the bar, i.e. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Rhythmic errors |
|||||
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
We may doubt whether the rhythmic variant occurring in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), almost unnoticeable in relation to analogous bars 60, 288 and 289, was intended by Chopin. Similar types of imprecise notation took place in Chopin’s works, cf., e.g. bar 377. Therefore, we cannot rule out that it is the unified, concurrent with the remaining bars version in GE3 that corresponds to the composer's intent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Dotted or even rhythm |
|||||
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
A possible oversight of the engraver of GE1 is proven by a comparison with analogous bar 290, in which all sources feature a b1-d category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The concordant slurs over similar motifs in bars 60-61 and 63 prove that the missing slur in the discussed bar is an inaccuracy of notation. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
before d
3 in the main text. The accidental was added also in 
– one beam is missing.
