Issues : Errors in FE

b. 106

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

No markings in FE (→GE1op,GE1no2,EEC)

Pedalling in A, EEW1 (→EEW2), GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2

..

The lack of pedalling in FE (→GE1op,GE1no2,EEC) is certainly a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 131

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

FE (→EE) overlooked the  sign in this bar and GE1op also the preceding it  sign. These are certainly mistakes – cf. corresponding bar 3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 137

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

..

Same as in bar 9, the absence of the  sign is most probably a mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE). It seems that seeing in A a reference to the earlier section of the piece, the engraver used the already engraved text and not A again.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 153

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

..

The absence of the  sign, clearly written in A, is probably a mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE). After a longer fragment marked in A in an abbreviated way, the bar is the first written out entirely, so that it seems to be likely that instead of reproducing the actual notation of this bar, the engraver repeated the notation of bar 25.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 162

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

g-e1 in A, GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2

g-c1-e1 in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2)

..

The chords on the 2nd and 3rd beats of the bar in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2) is most probably a mistake – see bar 34. The introduction of sixths in later GE is certainly a revision unifying bars 34, 98 and 162, in this case, according to us, giving the correct result.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions