mUltimate Chopin

Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 37

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Long accents in FE (→GE)

Short accents in EE
..

In such contexts, we encounter both short and long accents in Chopin's pieces. Therefore, it is difficult to determine without autograph which ones Chopin meant in this bar. In the main text, we preserve the notation of the principal source, i.e. FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies

b. 38

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the main text, we remove the unjustified cautionary  next to e3, present in all editions.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions

b. 38

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the sources, the bar is not divided, while the chord at the beginning of the bar is a dotted minim.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 39

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

FE

GE

EE

Our suggestion
..

Four dynamic and expressive indications are squeezed in the editions as if they were supposed to concern the b1 minim at the beginning of the bar. It probably results from misunderstanding the notation of [A], in which particular indications could have been partially overlapping due to the lacking space between the staves. In the main text, we separate two groups of indications – > like in the previous bar and  dolce defining the character of a new phrase that starts here.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 39

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

e1-g1 in FE (→EE)

c1-e1​​​​​​​ in GE1
..

The version of GE1 is almost certainly a Terzverschreibung, since nothing points to a possibility of a Chopinesque proofreading of that edition. It was already GE2 that considered it a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions