Issues : Errors in FE
b. 106
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor 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
..
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
..
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
..
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 |