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=""
The absence of in FE (→EE) must be considered an inaccuracy of notation. Most likely, it is a non-corrected oversight of the engraver, although one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that the sign was added by Chopin in GC. In turn, no
in GE1 is a patent oversight. See also bars 5 and 18-19.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: No initial dynamic marking, Errors in GE, GE revisions, Authentic corrections in GC
notation: Verbal indications