mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Andante spianato

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 52

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

..

None of the sources features the  lowering e2 to e2 on the 8th semiquaver of the bar. In such situations, when an accidental has already appeared at the same pitch yet under an octave sign, both Chopin and his publishers would often consider it to be valid. The inaccuracy, certainly repeated after [A], does not result in any textual doubts and is indeed hardly noticeable.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 72-73

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Slur to bar 73 in FE (→GE)

Slur to end of bar 72 in EE
..

In FE (→GE) the slur led as far as to b. 73 must be an inaccuracy of the engraver, perhaps provoked by careless notation of [A]. In EE the slur was shortened in accordance with the musical sense and the analogous situation in b. 84-85.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 78-90

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Notation in sources

Notation suggested by the editors
..

The sparing Chopinesque notation in b. 78 and 90 – no clear indication that the last crotchet still falls within the minim – may be misleading and it actually misled the engraver of FE, who laid out 3 beats of each of these bars as if they were 4/4 bars (see FE in the version 'transcription'). The erroneous layout was not repeated in GE and EE, yet in EE an extending dot next to the g minim was added, which means that the engraver counted four beats in this bar (the erroneous dot was removed in EE2). In the main text, in order to avoid doubts, we specify the mutual relation between the L.H. voices.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE