|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The missing tie of e3 in EE may be a mistake of the engraver or a version from before the last proofreading, repeated after FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The missing slur in GE is most probably an oversight. The range of the slur is questionable, yet without access to [A], it is difficult to evaluate whether the autograph's notation was distorted or whether it was indeed reproduced faithfully, but there are grounds to consider the notation of [A] to be inaccurate. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The missing dot in EE is most probably an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 42-43
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The proximity of the clearly long accent in b. 42 in FE makes us reproduce the accent in b. 43, being clearly shorter than the aforementioned one, as a short one. In turn, the difference between those marks was considered superfluous both in GE and EE. Due to the uncertainty as to Chopin's actual intention, the version of GE may be considered an acceptable variant. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
|
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
In FE the layout of the R.H. run against the L.H. semiquavers almost certainly does not correspond to the performance intended by Chopin – cf. similar situations in b. 17 and 41, in which the R.H. part was laid out 'at a guess,' without considering its alignment with the L.H. part. Therefore, in the main text we suggest the layout adopted in EE, which suggests the run's tempo comparable to the one of the remaining figures written in small notes. The alternative versions are based on an assumption that, just like in the remaining figures, the notation of [A] indicated the performance manner with the help of the rhythmic values of the remaining notes in the bar, yet in the editions the value of the first a2 was misinterpreted. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
& > in 
