Issues : EE revisions
b. 431
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In the main text, we add a sign, possibly overlooked by the engraver of FE (→GE). It was also added by the reviser of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE |
||||||||
b. 434-435
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
b. 443-444
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
According to us, the slur of FE (→EE), additionally separating a group of two notes from a three-note motif, is a result of an erroneous interpretation of the tie of a1. (FE and EE differ in the arrangement of the noteheads constituting the a1-b1 second; as a result, the discussed slur of FE seems to be reaching b1, whereas in EE – a1.) category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
||||||||
b. 447
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 448-449
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
!!! ZMIENIĆ !!! In FE (→GE), the engraver placed two separate hairpin marks – the former in bar 448 and the latter in bar 449. It must be an inaccuracy of the engraver (cf. the marks in bars 450-451 and 452-453), most probably caused by the fact that in FE bar 449 a new line (missing endings of such elements of notation as slurs, dynamic hairpins, particularly when transitioning to a new line or page, are a frequent mistake of the editions). In EE, the reviser justly placed one mark. We suggest beginning the hairpin right after the mark. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |