|
b. 87-95
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
In the main text we omit the additional slur over the R.H. triplet, present in b. 87 in all sources: cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 16. In EE a similar slur is also present in the L.H. in b. 95. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Triplet slurs |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 90
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
In the main text we suggest adding an accent in the L.H. after analogous b. 78. The mark was already added in EE. The accent may be considered short or long: see b. 67-72. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The sources differ in the range of the last L.H. slur in this section. In the main text we reproduce the notation of FE, in which the slur reaches the end of the bar, and the final part of the slur resembles a 'slur-tenuto'. This detail was not reproduced both in EE and GE1, in which the slur reaches the last crotchet. In GE2 (→GE3) the slur was adjusted to the bottom L.H. voice, which made it even shorter. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
One cannot see the quaver flag next to the final a1 on the copy of GE1a displayed in mUltimate Chopin. According to us, it is a result of this element having been poorly imprinted due to the wear and tear of the engraving plate, hence the flag may be visible on a different copy coming from this impression. Anyway, GE2 (→GE3) include the correct text. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in GE |
