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=""
Both versions are musically satisfying, in all respects; we cannot say anything definitive about possible corrections either – two possibilities could be likely: a change in the last stage of proofreading FE (→EE) and possible Chopinesque proofreading of GE. On the other hand, one cannot exclude a mistake by the GE engraver, who could have considered the middle notes of the last two chords to be identical (the discussed note is placed in FE too low). In the main text we provide the undoubtedly authentic FE version, perhaps the latest one. The GE version can be regarded as a potentially authentic variant.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Authentic corrections of FE, Authentic corrections of GE
notation: Pitch