mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Andante spianato

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 106

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Long accent on d2 in FE

Long accent on e2 in GE1

No mark in EE1

Vertical accent on e2 in EE2

Short accent on e2 in GE2

Short accent on d2 in GE3
..

Both the missing accent in EE1 and its placement on the 3rd semiquaver of the bar in GE1 (→GE2) must be mistakes. The oversight of the accent in EE1 could have been repeated after FE, in which the mark was then added in the last phase of proofreading. The addition of the accent in EE2 in an erroneous place may mean that the reviser did not compare this bar with b. 62, but with GE1 (there is also a possibility that it is simply a mistake, e.g. of the engraver).
In the editions that feature an accent here, it was the same type of mark as previously that was used: see b. 99-105.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 111

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

in FE (→EE)

No indication in GE
..

The missing  in GE is most probably an oversight of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 113

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Small quaver in FE (→GE1) & GE2 (→GE3)

Small crotchet in EE & GE1a
..

The version of EE is almost certainly a mistake: oversight of the quaver flag. In GE1a flags were overlooked next to the last two notes of the bar, which is a side effect of the graphical retouches in this fragment of the page. The mistake was not repeated in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE

b. 113

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

..

In GE there are no dots extending the c1-f1 minim. It must be a mistake of the engraver of GE1, corrected neither in subsequent impressions nor in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE