Issues : Errors in EE
|
b. 163-164
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Leading the L.H. slur until the beginning of bar 164 is much less justified than in the case of the R.H. slur due to the over two-octave f1-E category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 200
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing accent was certainly overlooked by the engraver of EE1 (→EE2). An accent – a short one – was added in EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 227
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE, there are no accidentals whatsoever in this bar. It is undoubtedly an error commited possibly by Chopin in [A] – cf. Etude in F minor, op. 25 no. 2, bar 56. Accidentals were added in both GE and EE: category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals |
||||||||
|
b. 230
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The engravers of GE and EE overlooked the ending of the slur in the L.H. while transitioning to a new great stave (bar 230 opens a new line). It belongs to the most frequent mistakes. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 235
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
leap. Therefore, it is quite likely that it is the slur added in 
before the lower note of the third on the 2nd quaver, thus confirming a
hairpin in