mUltimate Chopin

Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 364

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Wedge in FE (→EE)

Staccato dot in GE
..

In GE, the wedge was arbitrarily changed to a staccato dot.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 370

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In FE, the slur ends on the last note of bar 370, despite its continuation on the new line. It must be a mistake of the engraver. In EE and GE, the ending of the slur was extended – a revision we deem accurate – cf. analogous bars 230-231.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 388

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

in FE

in GE & EE
..

In the main text, we adopt the  hairpin after FE as the most likely reflection of Chopin's notation in [A]. In GE and EE the sign was slightly shifted in order to fit into the limits of semiquaver beams.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 396-399

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Slurs in FE

Slurs in GE & EE
..

In FE, the slurs that begin in bar 396 and 398 (and also 400) end on the 5th semiquaver of the following bar, in a place where a new slur also begins. In this context, it is to be considered an inaccuracy. Perhaps the engraver literally conveyed Chopin's bold, imprecise slurs, which are frequently encountered in his autographs. The revisers of GE and EE correctly ended those slurs on the 4th semiquavers of the discussed bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 400

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→EE1)
..

The lack of staccato dot in FE (→EE1) must be regarded as an inaccuracy. The mark was added already by the revisers of GE and EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies