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. 134

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dots in FE (→EE)
..

The missing staccato dots in the R.H. are most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 135

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

d1-b​​​​​​​1 in FE (→GE1,EE)

d1-b​​​​​​​1 in FEJ

e1-b​​​​​​​1 in GE2
..

The version of FE (→GE1,EE) with a d1-b1 sixth is most probably erroneous, which is indicated by a comparison with analogous bar 287, in which there is a fifth. It is also the change to d1-b1 written in FEJ that supports the thesis that the majority of the sources contain a mistake. At the same time, it was rather an e1-b1 fifth that corresponded to Chopin's original idea, since d1 in the second chord required the use of a . According to us, an additional argument in favour of a fifth is a characteristic juxtaposition of the c1-a1 sixth with the e1-b1 fifth (bars 117, 120, 125, 141), which appears a few times in this theme – wherever the melody features a1 and b1 against the A major and E7 chords. Taking into account the above, in the main text we give an e1-b​​​​​​​1 fifth. That version was introduced also in GE2. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FEJ

b. 136

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→GE,EE1)

Turn in EE2 (→EE3)
..

In EE2 (→EE3), a grupetto was arbitrarily added.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 137-138

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

2 slurs in FE (→GE,EE) – possible interpretation

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In FE (→GE,EE), the slur begins from the 1st note of bar 138, in spite of the fact that at the end of the previous bar (a line above) the slur clearly points to a continuation. In two previous similar places (bars 113-114 and 121-122), the slur over the bar line is combined and separated, respectively. Interestingly, in FE, it is exactly the same when the theme returns – a continuous slur in bars 265-266, a separated slur in bars 273-274 and an ambiguous one in bars 289-290. However, in the case of the latter, the slur begins on the last quaver of the bar, which practically excludes an interpretation other than a continuous slur. In the case of the discussed bar, it also allows us to tip the scales in favour of a continuous slur. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 139

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Long accent in FE

Short accent in GE & EE
..

Both GE and EE interpreted the mark of FE as an accent and gave it the form of a common short accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions