|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing slur is probably an inaccuracy of notation – cf. bars 115, 123, 267 and 275. On the other hand, the long accent over the crotchet suggests that the slur is not necessary; it is also absent in strictly analogous bar 291. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the slur in brackets. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 141
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Just like in a few similar places (bar 117, 269 and 293), we preserve the overlapping slurs in the main text. category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 142
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, the accent was arbitrarily changed to a short one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 143
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The cut of the bars after the fermata is present in FE (→GE,EE) and was most probably present already in [A]. We reproduce it in the main text, since it was certainly intended by Chopin and has a musical meaning – it emphasises the fermata and the following change of character (a tempo, category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 148-149
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
According to us, the range of stretto was inaccurately conveyed by the engraver of FE (→EE) – it should last until ritenuto. An oversight of dashes is even more likely, since bar 149 opens a new line of text. Therefore, in the main text we suggest adding dashes accordingly. In GE, there are no dashes at all, which is a frequent inaccuracy of that edition. However, in this case, if our interpretation of Chopin's intention is correct, leaving stretto alone seems to be less misleading than marking its range inaccurately. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
, dolce). There is a similar situation in bar 290.
