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=""
Lack of the lower voice in JC is certainly the copyist's oversight. The way of subscribing the last notes in PE suggests a simultaneous strike of the e1-c2 sixth, which could correspond to Chopin's intention, as such an edition would faithfully render the notation of [A]. For such a rhythm of the lower voice could have been easily written as
, we consider the notation of PE as inaccurate and we subscribe the notes according to their rhythmic values.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors of JC, Inaccuracies in PE
notation: Pitch