|
b. 443
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The addition introduced in GE, although most probably arbitrary (cf. bar 454), is justified here – it is present in all sources in analogous bar 199. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 444
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we add a slur with which Chopin would generally provide this motif in analogous situations both in the piano and the orchestral parts (violins I). Such an addition was introduced already in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 448-449
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The absence of the slur in the L.H. is one of a few defects of this type in FE; in this case, it probably stems from the gap caused by the change of clef. The slur was added in EE and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 450
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the second quaver in the R.H. is inaccurately printed – the notehead is actually at the pitch of e3, yet it is missing the ledger line that crosses it, as a result of which it can be interpreted as a d category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors repeated in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 450-451
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The accents over the R.H. could have been written in under the notes – cf. the placement of the markings of in analogous bars 206-207. However, even if this was not the case, the emphasis on the bass's progression and the symmetry of gestures of both hands require the even quavers being accentuated also in the L.H. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
3 in 
