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=""
![]() |
e |
The FE notation is contradictory – the ties to the e2-e
3 crotchet, even if they were to be considered slurs, interfere with the rest on the last quaver. It can be pointing to an unfinished correction from the version with a repeated octave (our alternative suggestion) to a tied octave (our main text), or the other way round. According to us, the first option is more likely – a tied octave rhythmically corresponds with the d2-d3 octave in bar 78, with Chopin changing the chord accompanying the tied melodic note in both cases. Therefore, this is the version we provide in the main text; it was also introduced by EE.
In FE (→GE) the e2-e
3 octave is a crotchet, followed by a quaver rest. This is contradictory to the ties, prolonging it to the next bar. The mistake was corrected in EE.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Errors repeated in GE
notation: Rhythm