Issues : EE revisions
b. 56
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The version of EE1 must be a mistake, a Terzverschreibung or resulting from mistaking bars, corrected in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||
b. 67
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The presence of dolce in EE may be explained by a revision, in this case not based on a comparison with an analogous place. It is also likely that it is an authentic, earlier indication, removed in FE (→EE) in the last phase of proofreading. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 68-96
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
EE added cautionary sharps before the f notes in b. 68, 71, 80, 92 and 95 and f1 in b. 69, 72, 81, 84, 93 and 96. The reviser could have considered the C major chords opening subsequent phrases to create an illusion of the C major key, of which he could have been convinced by the Chopinesque sharps before f in b. 78 and 83. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
b. 72-73
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
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. 73-86
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The missing ties of c1 in b. 73-74 and 85-86 in EE1, unless it is a double oversight, indicate that they were added in FE (→GE) in the last phase of proofreading. The ties were added in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |