Issues : EE inaccuracies
|
b. 10
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
In EE1 the engraver overlooked the grave accent in the word più. The inaccuracy was corrected in EE2 (→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
|
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
The missing pedalling in EE1 is a mistake of the engraver. It was rectified in EE2 (→EE3, yet the mark was placed slightly later, at the level of the 3rd semiquaver in the R.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
|
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
In FE one can see traces of proofreading of an earlier, inaccurate slur, encompassing four semiquavers only. This too short slur is present also in GE, which most probably means that the correction in FE was performed in the last stage of proofreading. The absence of the slur in EE1 resulted from the engraver's oversight, corrected in EE2 (→EE3), most probably on the basis of comparison with GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 88-89
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
It is difficult to say what EE1 was guided by when moving the accents under the chords, which may suggest accenting their bottom note, instead of the top one. The addition of parallel accents under the R.H. in EE2 (→EE3) rather did not bring the notation into line with the version of FE. However, one has to remember that it is uncertain whether FE reproduces the notation of [A] in a faithful manner, thus Chopin's intention in this respect. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
|
b. 178
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
The missing accent in EE1 (→EE2) is most probably an oversight of the engraver, rectified in EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
4-f4 in 