Issues : Accidentals in different octaves
|
b. 33
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
In FE (→GE) there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE |
|
|
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
In FE (→GE1) there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE |
|
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
In FE (→GE1) there are no accidentals before the 9th R.H. semiquaver and the last L.H. semiquaver. These patent inaccuracies, almost certainly repeated after [A], were corrected in EE and GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|
|
b. 52
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
None of the sources features the category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
raising d1 to d
1. That typical Chopinesque inaccuracy was almost certainly in [A]. The accidental was added only in 
lowering e2 to e
2 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.