data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The missing tie to f1 in FE (→EE) may be simply an oversight by the engraver. However, one cannot rule out that this version could be authentic or even later than the version with a tie, if Chopin removed it while proofreading FE. The reason for a possible correction could be a more exact rhythmic and melodic inner analogy between the phrases in bars 57-64 and 65-72 – in the former, both four-bar sections begin from tied sixths (bars 57 and 61), whereas in the latter – from a played note in the bottom voice (bars 65 and 69).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in FE, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Rhythm