Page: 
Source: 
p. 4, b. 49-70
p. 1, b. 1-14
p. 2, b. 15-28
p. 3, b. 29-48
p. 4, b. 49-70
p. 5, b. 71-88
p. 6, b. 89-101
Main text
Main text
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German Edition
GE2 - Later impression of GE1
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French Edition
FED - Dubois's copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English Edition
EE2 - Second impression of EE1
EE3 - Later impression of EE2
Select notes: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Differences
No differences
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German Edition
GE2 - Later impression of GE1
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French Edition
FED - Dubois's copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English Edition
EE2 - Second impression of EE1
EE3 - Later impression of EE2
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 64

Accents in GE

No accents in FE (→EE)

Our suggestion

In the editors' opinion, the placement of accents in GE does not necessarily reflect the notation of [A]. If Chopin wrote accents between the staves (like in the preceding bar) then the signs could overlap with the slur and what in turn could prompt the engraver to shift them below the lower staff. Accents could also be placed on the lower staff below b, as that type of notation is present in Chopin’s autographs. For that reason we suggest placing accents in a way that most probably is in keeping with Chopin's script or equivalent to it.

Lack of signs in FE (→EE) is certainly a mistake.

 

 

 

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins