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=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e59ea/e59ea164cc09fb20651e39bd84b5beefb140cf1e" alt=""
In FE there is a poorly visible wedge under the 1st R.H. quaver. Taking into account similar situations in bar 62 and 89, in which Chopin provided with wedges the quavers ending the homogeneous octave sequences, preceding a rest, we consider it likely that there could be a wedge in the discussed place. Therefore, we provide it in the main text while adding a corresponding mark for the L.H. quaver. However, it cannot be ruled out that the poor visibility of the mark is not merely a misprint, but a piece of evidence that the wedge was inaccurately removed in the stage of proofreading. The absence of the mark both in GE and EE suggests that these editions adopted the above interpretation. In the face of Chopin's proofreading, this version can be considered an equal variant.
Compare the passage in the sources»
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: Errors in EE, Errors in GE, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins